TexasCHLforum.com

HighVelocity wrote:

The outcome of this scenario will be determined primarily by the mindset, ability, and tactics of the
shooter and not solely by his choice of weapons

Winner!

There, I fixed it.

You cannot, logically, say that the choice of weapon is not relevant to the issue. Any attempt to do so fails basic logical analysis at the beginning.

Certainly there is a point beyond which the increased firepower yields a small enough additional advantage that one may reasonably determine it is not worth consideration. Where each of us draws that line is based on our own personal assessment of our risk and preferences.

mr.72 wrote:

HighVelocity wrote:

The outcome of this scenario will be determined primarily by the mindset, ability, and tactics of the
shooter and not solely by his choice of weapons

Winner!

There, I fixed it.

You cannot, logically, say that the choice of weapon is not relevant to the issue. Any attempt to do so fails basic logical analysis at the beginning.

Certainly there is a point beyond which the increased firepower yields a small enough additional advantage that one may reasonably determine it is not worth consideration. Where each of us draws that line is based on our own personal assessment of our risk and preferences.

Ok, first of all, altering a "quote" of another persons to emphasize YOUR OPINION, is flat WRONG. You do not add words to what someone else has stated to suit you. That is not "fixing it".

In my eyes, anything you post on this forum in the future will not be worth reading.

Ok, first of all, altering a "quote" of another persons to emphasize YOUR OPINION, is flat WRONG. You do not add words to what someone else has stated to suit you. That is not "fixing it".

I can't change another person's post and didn't intend to do so. I thought I was writing an original post of my own, and I made it very clear that I was intentionally altering the quote in order to make my point. Of course you are entitled to your opinion about whether this is "flat WRONG", but it is a reasonably normal practice in forums and discussion groups across the internet. I am not aware of a rule I violated on this forum, but I'll re-read them just in case I missed one.

In my eyes, anything you post on this forum in the future will not be worth reading.

Okey dokey.

The outcome of the scenario will also be determined by the mindset, ability, and tactics of the BG as well.

HighVelocity wrote: In my eyes, anything you post on this forum in the future will not be worth reading.

Well isnt that a bit harsh.



But anyway. I was watching one of those Most dangerous shows last night on TRUtv and there was a video of a deaf guy that answered his door and had three guys rush in on him. He managed to get his semi-auto out and get one shot off but missed. They wrestled it away from him and then tried to used it on him. However it jammed. Was interesting to see that after reading this post. Just shows what can happen in a pack mentality.

As a side note, my step-daughter is visiting her dad in Mn, and have gone to Valley Fair once or twice whilst she is there.
she is also 12...

if I'da been there, with my 5-shooter, and I ran out of ammo, I believe swinging for the fences would be a good tactic, club in hand.
that is what we call an unloaded handgun, right, a club? may as well use it like one...

mr.72 wrote:

HighVelocity wrote:

The outcome of this scenario will be determined primarily by the mindset, ability, and tactics of the
shooter and not solely by his choice of weapons

Winner!

There, I fixed it.

You cannot, logically, say that the choice of weapon is not relevant to the issue.

mr72, you seem to be getting lost among your strawman arguments.

Per the OP, the "issue" is whether or not the scenario given is a good argument against the 6-shooter. The "issue" is not if another type of weapon is more advantageous.

On another issue, I would be grateful if you did not alter my quotes to suit your own interests.
This falls under the rule of common courtesy.

If you would like to start a thread on the advantages of Hi-cap perhaps you could start here:

Group of 20 Men Attack, Rob Two Victims in Greensboro

MyFox Local News

GREENSBORO, N.C. (WGHP) -- A group of approximately 20 black males allegedly attacked two woman on High Point Rd. early Wednesday morning.

Around 1:25 a.m., approximately 20 young black males approached Mingan Pao, 37, and Quinghua Lu, 18, near the intersection of High Point Rd. and Immanuel Rd.

According to police, the victims stole Ms. Lu's purse and laptop computer. Mr. Pao suffered cuts, bruises and a possible broken jaw.

Anyone with information about this case is asked to call Crimestoppers at 336-373-1000

http://www.myfoxwghp.com/myfox/pages/Ne ... geId=3.2.1

TxD wrote:
GREENSBORO, N.C. (WGHP) -- A group of approximately 20 black males allegedly attacked two woman on High Point Rd. early Wednesday morning.

I'm probably the only one who found that slightly.... erm.... warped. I mean c'mon, HighPoint road.

Wildscar wrote:
But anyway. I was watching one of those Most dangerous shows last night on TRUtv and there was a video of a deaf guy that answered his door and had three guys rush in on him. He managed to get his semi-auto out and get one shot off but missed. They wrestled it away from him and then tried to used it on him. However it jammed. Was interesting to see that after reading this post. Just shows what can happen in a pack mentality.

I saw that program as well.

He had a tremendous amout of initiative to overcome.
I think he made a timing error, and that limited him to only getting one shot. It looked like the gun's slide was fouled when he took the first shot.

machinisttx wrote:You know, the wheelgun absolutely ruled the defensive handgun up until I would guess the mid 70's or 80's. People began to buy into the "I can miss more times with this gun" line and now believe the wheelgun to be archaic and apparently ineffective.

I'll stick with my 5 or 6 shot wheelgun, along with spare ammo, and actually hitting what I shoot at.

And I'm sticking with plastic and actually hitting what I'm shooting at except I can do it 15 times without reloading.

Some folks just need more holes in them than others.

casingpoint wrote:The U.S. Supreme Court says by implication you can carry a knife, and did not specify in Heller an length or edge limitations.

Heller didn't go nearly far enough to assume you can legally carry a double edged knife in Texas. Seriously, its not even close.

casingpoint wrote:Certainly a knives were commonly owned civilian arms "back in the day." Surely some must have had double edges, further entrenching your right to carry one.

Just because god gave you the right does not mean you wont have an A misdemeanor on your record if you get caught carrying that thing.

Sure revolvers still go bang, and are effective. But if they were the end all of handguns why do our armed forces no longer use them. Also last I saw no country used them and most PD's wont let their officers use them. That does'nt make them bad but having more bullets is not a bad thing.
I carry a Kel-tec 32 and a Para 14-45. I carry at least 1 mag extra for each and every once in a wile I through on my RIA in addition to those 2 with 2 spare mags for it. Call me paranoid but thats what I do
As for what would I have done as a onlooker. I would be doing less looking and more shooting. I was raised with the ideal that evil triumphs when good men do nothing. As for would I have shot one and let them run?
No I would not have given them the chance how do I know if they will run away or run at me and witch one do I pick
as for me and mine I would have shot the closest one first and worked my way to the back as fast as my para will pump out 230 gr hydrashocks (keeping in mind not to hit innocent bystanders. even though if some guy is getting a beat down most people likely ran away)
Not only acting in defense of the 2 poor victims but also in the interest of crime prevention. Who knows what else these hoodlums have done and will do in the future if left to their own devices? They should be off the streets for good and good riddens
I have owned 3 revolver and didnt really like them. Wile they are a carry choice for some they don't fit my fancy
and if all goes well they will all be on the ground before I need my second 14 round mag full or 45ACP

God willing I will never need to do any of that. But I cant be sure that will be the case thats why I carry



this has been a big ramble im sorry

Frost wrote:

casingpoint wrote:The U.S. Supreme Court says by implication you can carry a knife, and did not specify in Heller an length or edge limitations.

Heller didn't go nearly far enough to assume you can legally carry a double edged knife in Texas. Seriously, its not even close.

casingpoint wrote:Certainly a knives were commonly owned civilian arms "back in the day." Surely some must have had double edges, further entrenching your right to carry one.

Just because god gave you the right does not mean you wont have an A misdemeanor on your record if you get caught carrying that thing.

that doesnt make texas law right just cuz its there it is the law i dont own a double edged knife or any other illegal knife but we should be able to and if not for the law I would own some "illegal" knifes

Just shoot the six biggest ones, then you and the other guy have a fair fight on your hands.

Too easy

You guys are funny. I've skimmed through almost 6 pages worth of pointless arguing. People carrying two boxes worth of ammo, and 3 weapons. What are you expecting to happen? Since when is a pistol an offensive weapon? You gonna take on some LA bank robbers with those pea shooters? All the people I've heard of that used a pistol offensively got medals posthumously, and in those cases, they were probably going to die anyway. Might as well go down shooting.