Packin Heat
Intermediate
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
RE: Packin Heat
ORIGINAL: JohnT
Every time I see one of these 'pistol packin' Pete' threads, in my head I hear the tune "Macho, Macho Man" by the Village People. I always also wonder how many of you modern day gunslingers have ever actually shot another person, let alone killed them. Talking/posturing about it's one thing; doing it is another. Just sayin'.
Every time I see one of these 'pistol packin' Pete' threads, in my head I hear the tune "Macho, Macho Man" by the Village People. I always also wonder how many of you modern day gunslingers have ever actually shot another person, let alone killed them. Talking/posturing about it's one thing; doing it is another. Just sayin'.
I would not hesistate one second to slap leather and sling lead at anyone threatening my life, my family, or the lives of innocents in my vicinity. I'd be happy following that person's demise and go sleep with a smile knowing I helped rid society of some dirt.
That's the American way. Liberals, Canadians, etc. will never understand that point of view, but that's the way it is for moststrong, independent guys. These typesof guys tend to be bikers.
Cruiser
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Packin Heat
No flame here but I just checked my 10mm black talon box and it says "teflon coated." Oops, sorry, I only have the box...guess I used all the ammo on targets....
That Colt 10mm is really heavy so I usually carry a para ord P10-45. Nice little piece fits in small places
That Colt 10mm is really heavy so I usually carry a para ord P10-45. Nice little piece fits in small places
ORIGINAL: hambone
Not trying to start a pissing match with you bensonjv, but I want to clear things up for you and others who may still think this. Black Talons were never banned and are not illegal to carry. Smith & Wesson pulled them due to all the bad press they were getting with the media calling them "Cop Killers" and all. You can get the same bullets from other manufactures, they just don't call them Black Talons. In fact, the Hornady TAP FPD rounds I carry are the exact same bullet.
The ONLY rounds that are illegal to purchase, own or carry are teflon coated rounds.
Flame suit on now.
Rick
ORIGINAL: bensonjv
OC spray is another option. Not the Autozone or Wal-mart stuff but good law enforcement/military grade. For example, and not admitting I carry this, First Defense MK-4 cannister. Its 0.18% Capsaicinoid, seriously strong enough to incapacitate most, and non-toxic food grade contents so you can spray it on your tacos if you are short on hot sauce. Most people you encounter will likely never have been sprayed before. I can assure you it isn't pleasant. Best is that it is legal to carry without a permit. Some CCH permits do not transfer from state to state.
Although, if I were to CC, my weapon of choice would be a 45 Colt 1991A1 Compact (tuned-up a bit) and a few mags of pre-ban Black-Talons or Hydra-Shock in a shoulder holster; hard to draw quickly from waistband with a lot of leather and riding gear like bosnmate pointed out.
OC spray is another option. Not the Autozone or Wal-mart stuff but good law enforcement/military grade. For example, and not admitting I carry this, First Defense MK-4 cannister. Its 0.18% Capsaicinoid, seriously strong enough to incapacitate most, and non-toxic food grade contents so you can spray it on your tacos if you are short on hot sauce. Most people you encounter will likely never have been sprayed before. I can assure you it isn't pleasant. Best is that it is legal to carry without a permit. Some CCH permits do not transfer from state to state.
Although, if I were to CC, my weapon of choice would be a 45 Colt 1991A1 Compact (tuned-up a bit) and a few mags of pre-ban Black-Talons or Hydra-Shock in a shoulder holster; hard to draw quickly from waistband with a lot of leather and riding gear like bosnmate pointed out.
The ONLY rounds that are illegal to purchase, own or carry are teflon coated rounds.
Flame suit on now.
Rick
Advanced
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
From: Arroyo Grande, CA
RE: Packin Heat
I got this off another gun board, and tracked it to the source. Well-written, I would say.
_____________________________
Friday, March 23, 2007
why the gun is civilization.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
_____________________________
Friday, March 23, 2007
why the gun is civilization.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Elite HDF Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,630
Likes: 1
From: Munford, TN
RE: Packin Heat
ORIGINAL: Percy
I got this off another gun board, and tracked it to the source. Well-written, I would say.
_____________________________
Friday, March 23, 2007
why the gun is civilization.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
I got this off another gun board, and tracked it to the source. Well-written, I would say.
_____________________________
Friday, March 23, 2007
why the gun is civilization.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
