Forum Replies Created
I really like it when a profesional is willing to admit they flip-flopped. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind after having walked the path of life and realizing "I never thought of it that way before". I agree with the author that a 9mm is plenty of weapon for every day carry, and self defence.
I agree you will get better accuracy with strings of fire with a 9mm but I am not sure you will want to take that many shots in a self defence situation. I have been taught to double tap all of my targets, assess the situation and proceed as necessary (this is totaly dependant on the situation so don’t try to hold me to for all possible events.) Part of the reason for this is to limit civil and criminal liability in the event I use my weapon for self defence. You don’t want a prosecutor telling the jury that you shot a guy 6 times and that it was your intent to kill him, not to just defend yourself. The number of times you shoot someone will definately be taken into account during the investigation, they will use this as a way of determining your mindset during the incident and it may make a difference as to whether you are charged with a crime or not.
I took my wife and daughter about a year ago. It was very informative and fun, we plan on going back next spring. Its a great way to start out and a lot less money than the major training facilities. I am waiting until my daughter is 10 before I take her to Front Sight. Most of the shooters were using .22’s (ruger 10/22’s were everywhere) but you can bring what you want.
I thought I heard some sarcasm in your post
Anyone know an online site where I can pick up an FN SLP Mk. 1 at a good price. I bought my last one in the low $800 range and everything I’m looking at now is over $1000. Thanks for any help.
I checked with my dealers and some friends about this gun. I couldn’t do any better than $975 plus shipping and transfer. I checked some prices of my purchases over the last couple of years and it seems guns are up at least 10% and some are up over 20%. Hey, thats a better return than the stock market.
Seems a little extreme, burying stuff in the ground, doesn’t it?
I am surprised to hear you think this would be extreme. Good prepping takes all possibilities into account and gets ready for them. I myself have several locations where I have a full assortment of supplies ready just in case, yes some of them are burried. Instead of cosmoline I used waterproof/airtight containers with desicant and oxy absorbers, much less of a mess when you have to get back into it and you don’t have to clean the guns before you use them.
There have been gunfights that have pitted handgun carrying citizens against rifle carrying criminals that have taken place over a fair distance. Imagine you are in a mall and you hear gunfire coming from an area 50 yards away. Your teenage daughters headed that way a half hour ago. You see a person carrying an AK, walking down the mall calmly shooting shoppers that are trying to escape while shouting something about Allah. Assuming you have a clear shot, would you not take it if you had a chance of success? I think that is the point of a weapon like that.
I see your point and I would most definately take the shot if it presented itself. Even with the optic I would probably (totaly dependant on the situation) try to move in for a closer shot. No point in letting your opponent know you are there and a handgun bullet at 50 yards is not likely to incapcitate, even with a properly placed shot. I still feel that proper training, with both tactics and the weapon itself, would be better than an optic on a handgun. The more pieces you add to the weapon the more difficult it becomes to carry and use. Also, I wouldn’t want to become dependant on optics. Maybe rifle carry will become the norm in the near future, I sure would prefer my Ak over my glock in the situation you described above.
Greg Roberts wrote:
Like using a gun to force people to do things they normally wouldn’t do? Sounds like utopia.
Its extremely easy to pull a couple of words out of anyones comments and spin them any way you want. Read the ENTIRE post and you will see what I trying to say. Here let me make it easy for you.
A purely free market will never work because the participants will rape, pillage and plunder the resources of the earth and the labor pool until there is nothing left. This is because their only motive is profit, nothing else matters.
A purely socialist or ZGM system will never work because you can’t force people to do what you want and you shouldn’t steal from hard working people to give to somebody else. Their only motive is to make everything "equal".
That being said free market people are hard working entrepreneurs’ that provide goods and services and jobs that benefit everyone.
Socialists have the idea that everyone should be treated equally, that resources should be shared.
In my opinion what we need are a blending of these two ideas, neither can stand on its own.
Part of the problem is framing part of the debate about economic systems along the lines of redistribution of income, alone, without questioning the underlying dynamics in that system. If a business, for example is structured along partnership lines where the top guy voluntarily limits his income to say, 5 times that of the lowest level employee, most of the arguments about redistribution would nullify. And most people would be just fine with that. Person brings new partner into the lowest tier of a business, at 25 thou a year. He then limits himself to 125,000. a year income. Could you legislate this? Hell yeah. Would you have to? Probably not. Then initiate a flat tax. Get rid of 50% of the military. Make people work for welfare. Devote most tax dollars to education. Problem solved
Lets start with a little background. I own a small business (started solo in my garage in 2000) with eleven employees. The lowest guy is a part time warehouse helper that makes about 20K per year. No way am I going to do all I do for $100K. Lets take my mid-level guys then, they make about $50K per year. Ok, I can live with $250K. But to use your analysis in a larger picture, you want a person to run a multinational company for about $80K(warehouse help is about $8 per hour). Do you really think this is possible? Do you think anyone will agree to that? I have been reading your posts for a long time and you seem much smarter than that. I agree with you about the flat tax, the military, welfare and many of the other things you have posted on. I disagree about public education.
The problem with all the ideas to solve the problems of our world is that THEY WILL NEVER HAPPEN! Your ideas sound great on paper but will fall flat in the real world. This includes everything from a totaly free market system to a pure socialist system to everything inbetween. Its easy to say "just do this, problem solved". How do you get 8 billion people to go along? Lets just say you want to change the US. How do you get an entire society to have a paradigm shift to your reality? You can’t subjugate people to any plan no matter how wonderful it may seem on paper.
I know we need to have a discussion so we can better help to shape the future. Thats the point though, we need to discuss the future and what type of society we will build out of the ashes of the one we live in now. Not how we could change this or that with the system we have and everything will be fixed. This system will collapse under its own burgeoning weight, nothing can change that. What we need is for people to care about each other. To make decisions based partialy on a free market to be productive and profitable, and partialy on social justice to have "things" more evenly distributed. But, you can’t TELL people how to behave, they need to act of their own volition, their own choice. We need to remove greed from humanity, which will never happen in todays world but may be possible in the next one. Until you can get people to actually care about each other and the environment all the talk about changing monetary policy or the social structure or politics or just about any subject you want to insert here is just noise. Its the people and their beliefs/morals that make the system, its not the system making the people..
PS Sorry to VanityFox for hijacking the thread
I have bee visiting this site for 3-4 years. I have seen the debates going back and forth about what system will save us. I have not posted in most of these discussions because I don’t believe anything will save us now. Pure free market will not work, neither will any socialist model, or any model of any type. There is no system that will make this planet a better place because the people of earth are selfish snots. We need to learn to care for those around us and for those we will never meet. To have people make decisions based on what will be good for everyone, not just whats good for themselves. You can’t take from one to give to another either, redistribution will never work. All of the models discussed here at CM and every where I look will never work because humanity’s morals of today are totaly screwed.
I would not say what I wrote was advice. I was really just pointing out the difference between ethics and morals.
My solution is to wait. All of this will come tumbling down, the Three E’s guarantee it. How far down I don’t know, I hope its far enough to shatter the hold that large corporations/government(same entity in my mind) have on the populace. This will give us a chance to build a new "system". It is my hope that humanity will learn what Empathy is and learn to respect each other and the planet. As a whole people don’t care about anything but themselves and this is the root of all evil.
If you want a system, how about a free market with the participants having socialist morals and a teeny tiny gov. Not going to happen in todays world. Maybe next time.
It looks really cool but I have never seen a need for optics on a handgun. Most self defense situations will take place at MUCH less than 20 feet, and you should be trained enough to engage a target at that distance with no problem. The ad says its effective out to 100 yards, for that distance I would just use a rifle. How would you explain to a jury that you shot a guy at 100 yards with your pistol? What kind of imminent threat is a person when they are 100 or even 20 yards away? For that price I can get two Glock 17’s and enough ammo to practice with for weeks.
There is no sliding scale of morality based on income. Every one of us wakes up in the morning and is faced with choosing between right and wrong hundreds of times a day. More often than not, the income a person draws is related to how they tend to make those decisions. How a person approaches school, their job and their community plays a role in their personal success.
I’m not saying that more income equates to higher morals, but that low ethics exist at both ends of the scale. To suggest that because a person has a low income gives them any excuse for looting, robbing and mugging is completely wrong. Marching for a cause is a very moral thing to do. Turning a morally motivated march into a mass of looting and robbery is about as low as you can get. There is no way to rationalize that type of behaviour based on income. None.
I agree with your thoughts overall however, you are mixing morals with ethics rather loosely. I don’t think there is a sliding scale of morality based on income but I do think there is a scale based on ethics.
Here is a defination for ethics http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics
Here is a defination for morals http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morals
In short morals are a personal set of guidelines while ethics are defined by society/community or a specific group.
As an individual no one is going to think " I make more money and am more privilged than others so I should act more responsibly, and take better care of my community". To the contrary I think privileged people think the world should cater to their whims and feel no responsibility to any one.
On the flip side society in general feels that the privileged people should do more to take care of everyone else. The general population feels that the privileged have gotten where they are because of the system so they should give something back.
Every where I look everything ( capital, power, opportunity) flows to the top and never makes it way back down to the rest of the people. The game is rigged for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and for the middle class to go away. If a person is wealthy and privileged they should do what they can to help others as much as possible. I don’t believe they should be forced to, ie. taxes, laws, regulation, redistribution, that will never work. The privileged should feel MORALY compelled to help others because of their sucess.