Angry Mob Attacks Family... (This DOES happen!)

[Evan Thomas]

...there's a big difference between a gun and a magic wand. It's not a "Presto!" device, some sort of "Get Out of Trouble Free" card. It's not even guaranteed to make the event go your way.

Peetza, this is blasphemy. They'll revoke your gunwoobie license.

 

[Microgunner]

I'm saying there's a big difference between a gun and a magic wand. It's not a "Presto!" device, some sort of "Get Out of Trouble Free" card. It's not even guaranteed to make the event go your way.

Sounds like you've already resolved yourself to die. Me? Not so much.

ONLY 31 rounds?
But what if you're attacked by more than 31 people? What do you do then? Don't you care enough about your life to carry at least 300 rounds of ammo???????

That's right. I draw the line at 31.

 

[matolman1]

Since you don't know for certain if your house will ever burn down, is the proper course of action to not have fire insurance?

Simply because you do not know what the outcome of a specific situation might be does not mean you should stick your head in the proverbial sand and HOPE that the outcome will be one where you did not need proper prevention in the first place.

When I go out on patrol in Israel, I dont carry one magazine in my M4 and leave all of my other gear on base since the odds are I won't need to use more than 29 rounds, or stun grenades, or my helmet or any other peice of gear.
Rather, I load up to full combat load, each time, every time because this builds discipline, instills confidence and keeps my combat mindset in check. To do anything else is simply stupid.

You can also apply this path to the civillian world. Be prepared for the worst case scenario. Buy fire insurance. Walk tall and carry a large stick. Discipline yourself to be prepared for multiple worst case scenarios. You simply cannot go wrong with this mindset.

 

[matolman1]

NEVER delude yourself into thinking that "Hey, it's never happened to me, so it never will happen! I'm the golden boy!"

Mr. Irwin, I find your comment to be ironic since your signature line above seems to say the opposite of your sarcastic comment regarding carrying 31 rounds rather than "300."

ONLY 31 rounds?

But what if you're attacked by more than 31 people? What do you do then? Don't you care enough about your life to carry at least 300 rounds of ammo???????

 

[zxcvbob]

There's a diminishing return to having more ammo. You'll have to decide for yourself where the line is, and unless you can predict the future there's not enough information available to make the decision. So you do your own risk assessment, prepare the best you can, and quit worrying about it. (prepared for an unknown risk *and* quit worrying is a hard combination)

 

[A_McDougal]

Anyone who feels sure a group of teens will continue attacking into gun fire, should try shooting their gun without hearing protection.

If I were the investigating police, I'd start at the University of Akron, and follow up at the Akron Masjid, both right close to the stadium. Besides gangs, where do groups of young male extremists congregate?

 

[Evan Thomas]

Sounds like you've already resolved yourself to die. Me? Not so much.

Whoa, whoa now. Easy there, big fella. No one's saying don't have a gun... no one's saying don't use it if you do have it. What some of us are saying is that this is a situation in which having or using a gun doesn't guarantee a good outcome, and may make things worse. Using the gun may still seem like the best option, but we have no way to predict what will happen. It's not magic.

And the OP is suggesting that having more ammunition would be likely to improve the outcome. Some of us are questioning that assumption, which is not the same as not wanting to be (reasonably) prepared.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

When I go out on patrol in Israel, I dont carry one magazine in my M4 and leave all of my other gear on base since the odds are I won't need to use more than 29 rounds, or stun grenades, or my helmet or any other peice of gear.
Rather, I load up to full combat load, each time, every time because this builds discipline, instills confidence and keeps my combat mindset in check. To do anything else is simply stupid.

What correlation does that have to the streets of America? We're not in a war zone, we don't have suicide bombers, we don't have people targeting our markets with car bombs, we don't live in a tense standoff with our neighbors.


There's two things here. First, what effect we can expect our drawing, or even firing, a gun to have on the aggressor(s) and secondarily, one of what level of threat we are willing to prepare for.

My point is, and has been all since my first post in this thread, that we should have ZERO expectations of what will happen when we draw a gun. The BG(s) may run, they may grovel, they may attack physically, they may draw their own gun..... we can't not know and we should not pretend that we might now. We do not know if having a gun will be good or bad in any given situation. Part of being a reasonable and responsible gun owner, and carrier, is having put some thought into what we're going to do if having the gun turns out not to be helpful, or worse, causes the situation to go from bad to SHTF. Having a gun DOES NOT give you an advantage. Having a BRAIN gives you an advantage. An advantage that a tool like a gun can enhance or diminish, depending on your actions.

 

[matolman1]

Correct. I am not advocating carrying hundreds of rounds of ammunition with you every time you leave the house to go out in public.

I believe that it is reasonable to train people to carry at least 1 spare magazine whenever they are carrying their semi-auto with them.

If you carry a revolver, you should carry at least one speed loader with you.

This builds confidence and combat mindset. "I know I can engage multiple targets." "I know I can provide cover fire during an active shooter situation." etc...

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Old argument - Ben's right!

No need to replay it. If you don't want to, don't.

BTW, I have been:

1. Hit by lightning
2. Avoided more than 5 opponent - no - I scuttled away and wasn't a gun guy then but these were murderous folk and a reload or higher cap would have been nice if it didn't go that way.

But here's the bottom line - if you don't want to plan for the extreme event - just don't. That's it. Insisting others are somehow incorrect for doing it is just getting plan old silly.

 

[matolman1]

Glenn says it right.

I guess I am just more combat mindset oriented than others due to where I have fought terrorists for 12 years and where I currently live (Memphis, the highest violent crime rate in the Country).

Thats the way I train others to be. "Always expect the unexpected" is a matter of life for me and those I train. Anything less and I am not earning my paycheck.

 

[Master Blaster]

The mob didnt seek out the nearest Karate DoJo, they didnt look for a college football team, or a couple bar bouncers to attack, they didnt storm the police station, or the national guard armory. They didnt go to a redneck bar to challenge 50 drunk Crackers. They didnt seek out the Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings, Pagans, or the Hells Angels MC club to pick a fight with.
They looked for the most helpless victims they could find who they vastly outnumbered, and didn't know. Its what a bunch of high, scared, cowards do to make themselves look brave.

They were a mob of COWARDS.

Had the victim pulled a gun and fired one shot they would have been gone instantly.

BTW if I were the Police I would check the cellphone twitter traffic in the area that night similar stuff has happened in Philadelphia Pa, and it was traced to Twitter inspired "Wilding"

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Mr. Irwin, I find your comment to be ironic since your signature line above seems to say the opposite of your sarcastic comment regarding carrying 31 rounds rather than "300.""


Mato...

It's not irony, it's humor.

Any logical, rational person realizes that going from 30 rounds to 300 is truly jumping from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Not to mention that to carry 300 rounds of ammo would require 20 or more magazines.


As for what I TRULY believe?

I believe I'll take my chances with the decisions I make, and not depend on others to dictate scenarios to me as a "decision making aid."

I believe I'll also take responsibility for the decisions I make, and not try to blame someone else if my decisions get me into hot water.

Finally, I also believe that this story is false, and that it wasn't Akron inner city youths who attacked this family, but that it was an extended tribe of Hottentots and that this family has only itself to blame for not calling the 5"/cal. 38 guns into service.



If you're lucky, maybe someone will explain that last cryptic remark.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

but that it was an extended tribe of Hottentots

Not the fuzzy wuzzies? You know they broke the square!

 

[matolman1]

Mr. Irwin, It most CERTAINLY could not have been the Hotentots as the Hotentots were busy shopping in Narnia that evening.

I believe I'll take my chances with the decisions I make, and not depend on others to dictate scenarios to me as a "decision making aid."

A person can really learn from others experiences and scenarios and I think it is prudent to tailor my decision making based on new information or scenarios that have happened to others. History repeats itself.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Insisting others are somehow incorrect for doing it is just getting plan old silly.

Except, I have not insisted that it is "incorrect" to prepare for an extreme event. I said that it is unnecessary, yes. Incorrect, no. I have, in fact, said the opposite, that whomever feels that they need to prepare for such an event should just go ahead and do it. Those who feel I am wrong have rarely afforded me the same consideration.

As for a "combat mindset". Well, I have no need for such a thing. I can be vigilant and prepared without being ready for "combat".

 

[Evan Thomas]

But here's the bottom line - if you don't want to plan for the extreme event - just don't. That's it. Insisting others are somehow incorrect for doing it is just getting plan old silly.

I don't think anyone's saying "Don't plan for it." And yes, that would be silly. I think there are a couple of genuine questions that get lost in all the "is too/is not" posturing, once that gets going. First, a very concrete one: would a gun and a couple of magazines have helped in the situation reported in the OP's article? The answer to which, I think, is a big "Who knows?" At the same time, it's not clear that two magazines would have been better than one -- especially when the point of comparison is not having any.

The second question is how "extreme" an event do you plan for, where planning equals how much ammunition do you carry, or perhaps, in general, how heavily you're armed on a daily basis? The answer, so far, seems to be somewhere between 16 and 300 rounds... and 31 rounds hardly seems excessive, as compared to 300.

But the more important point is that if your "plan" revolves around hardware, and if you think that, in some magic way, having the right hardware is going to guarantee a good outcome, you're probably going to be disappointed. And I'm sure that you and Mr. Goldstein would both agree with that...

As for a "combat mindset". Well, I have no need for such a thing. I can be vigilant and prepared without being ready for "combat".

Well said. It's not the way I choose to meet the world, given that I'm fortunate enough not to live in a war zone.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The classic conundrum of all contingency planning is whether to plan for the most likely or the most catastrophic event. Often you cannot do both. I vote for most likely.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

When you think about it, that would have been an event that caused high anxiety - particularly because of the proximity of one's wife and children.

I certainly don't envy the victim - Marshall.

One reason that I don't envy him is that it would certainly seem to me (in the calm of retrospection) that he was never in imminent danger of losing his life (or the lives of his family).

He was facing an angry crowd of teenagers, yes, but none of them apparently had or brandished or even displayed a firearm, a stick, a golf club, a ball bat, or any weapon at all, as far as I can tell.

I'm not a guy blessed with a great deal of ability to predict the future, but I supect that had Marshall pulled out a pistol and killed 4 or 5 of the unarmed teenagers a couple things would have happened. First, the rest likely would have run away. Second, Marshall would have more to fear from the survivors than he has now to fear from them (assuming they get away with the assault). And third, Marshall would find himself in a world of crap as he would be facing not just hospital bills but lawyer bills, court appearances, and possibly jail time and a felony record, after the 4 or 5 unarmed teenagers are buried and then promptly made into Saints in the media. Marshall would lose not only his job and his savings accounts, but possibly his home, his freedom, and any future potential to get a job where a felony record would not impact his employability.

Because, as far as I can see, at no time was Marshall legally justified in killing a half-dozen or so of the unarmed teenagers.

Like Glenn and Pete have said, if you want to carry dressed for war, more power to you.

If you don't want to, thats your choice too.

But I don't think that packing a pistol and two spare magazines necessarily prepares you to deal with an angry mob; and if they are unarmed and you open up on them - absent any clear and present threat to your existence of that of your loved ones - you will eventually understand why that was a bad idea.

IMHO. YMMV.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

He was facing an angry crowd of teenagers,

Which would I believe constitute disparity of force and therefore legally justify SD. Any of you lawyers like fiddletown could corrrect me. However, you other pointsto the aftermath are pretty straight. Might not be successfully sued civilly depending on state law. Retribution would definately be a concern.