“Am I out of my mind? I am seriously considering getting rid of my rifles. I have an AR or two set up for home defense…..” No, not me but a man on a forum I belong to. He says he doesn’t need the money but despite taking training courses twice a year he doesn’t see any need for a rifle for self-defense. As others offered suggestions and well-meant advice he decided to argue their points. Yeh, that’s right he asked for advice and then argued why he should not take it.
One of his arguments was; where does being able to shoot beyond 20 yards enter into self-defense? This is a good debating point for a lawyer. I should thank him for this question, and I would if he deserved my thanks, but his baiting everyone on the forum was rude.
The samurai’s favorite weapon was his bow. That’s right not his sword. That was his second favorite weapon right? No, the spear came next. Then, if all else failed, he would draw his sword. Then his tanto, bare fists, teeth, etc. Do you get the message? Its all about maai, engagement distance. Self-defense today has de-evolved to what can you do to protect yourself and not end up in prison. Can you shoot someone breaking down your front door, or, does he have to be in the same room, does he have to be within arms reach or actually have his hands around your throat? If the latter is the answer, then a knife is your best defense. Uhh how long a knife? Can I use a katana, or maybe a machete, a bowie knife, a Spyderco ladybug? I know I am being annoying but you see my point.
The US government has decided that in its own best interest we can DEFEND our nation by attacking people in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, or any other point on the globe. The Senate has declared the entire world our battlefield. But as individuals we are expected to allow "bad guys" to enter our homes and not take action? There are still states that have not passed "Castle Doctrine" laws that would allow us to ensure the safety of our families. Would I personally engage a threat at 200 yards to protect my home and family? If that is what it takes, yes, and face the consequences as they came. I could not do this with a shotgun or a hand gun. And, by the way, I can shoot someone at 3 yards with a rifle, but once again at that range a knife is the best option. One final point, if all you want is a pat on the back, or the validation of your foregone conclusions, don't bug folks on the forum, go talk to your mom.
One of his arguments was; where does being able to shoot beyond 20 yards enter into self-defense? This is a good debating point for a lawyer. I should thank him for this question, and I would if he deserved my thanks, but his baiting everyone on the forum was rude.
The samurai’s favorite weapon was his bow. That’s right not his sword. That was his second favorite weapon right? No, the spear came next. Then, if all else failed, he would draw his sword. Then his tanto, bare fists, teeth, etc. Do you get the message? Its all about maai, engagement distance. Self-defense today has de-evolved to what can you do to protect yourself and not end up in prison. Can you shoot someone breaking down your front door, or, does he have to be in the same room, does he have to be within arms reach or actually have his hands around your throat? If the latter is the answer, then a knife is your best defense. Uhh how long a knife? Can I use a katana, or maybe a machete, a bowie knife, a Spyderco ladybug? I know I am being annoying but you see my point.
The US government has decided that in its own best interest we can DEFEND our nation by attacking people in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, or any other point on the globe. The Senate has declared the entire world our battlefield. But as individuals we are expected to allow "bad guys" to enter our homes and not take action? There are still states that have not passed "Castle Doctrine" laws that would allow us to ensure the safety of our families. Would I personally engage a threat at 200 yards to protect my home and family? If that is what it takes, yes, and face the consequences as they came. I could not do this with a shotgun or a hand gun. And, by the way, I can shoot someone at 3 yards with a rifle, but once again at that range a knife is the best option. One final point, if all you want is a pat on the back, or the validation of your foregone conclusions, don't bug folks on the forum, go talk to your mom.
Posts
6 comments:
Well said Dave, what an outstanding post. Especially in light of the fact that the law should ultimately reflect the preferences of the people it governs. That is what I find so incredibly frustrating about that man's attitude. To simply lay down your rights, your weapon - to curl up in a ball at the feet of our system. The system that enables so many freedoms but can also deliver us into a police state if we allow weak and narrow minded individuals to gain control and force their preferences. The message here is important and I appreciate being reminded of it.
Thanks Dan. Without the second ammendment, and people willing to uphold it, none of our other rights stand a chance.
I totally agree - This is the kind of thing we cant take for granted, and sadly that appears to be exactly what is happening.
The original poster on the forum showed that despite his training he still did not understand the use of weapons. Instructors will tell you that a pistol is used to defend with until you can access a better platform, ie shotgun, carbine or rifle. The fear factor of facing down the barrel of long arms cannot be dismissed either.
Brilliant post, Dan. I cannot understand the guy's thought process. Even if you did not think you needed a rifle for self-defense, NOT THAT YOU HAVE IT, how about keeping it anyway IN CASE YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT THE WHOLE NOT-NEEDING-IT-THING? What's the downside? Does the guy need the storage space in his closet?
I don't know about you, but one of the big things I learn as I get older is how WRONG about things I am capable of being. HOW MUCH I DON'T KNOW. In other words, when there's a low cost to having an extra option, KEEP YOUR OPTIONS NUMEROUS AND OPEN!!!
Plus, there's this old activity from yesteryear called "hunting," that can put food on the table. Maybe this guy thinks that the supermarket's shelves will sprout food automatically no matter what.
A real head scratcher, but your comments were great.
Duh, typo. I meant NOW that you have it not NOT that you have it.
Post a Comment