They don't have the 2nd Amendment in France.
(In response to Megan Kelly's Navy Seal's interview.)

What loads should I be using in my snubby if the bad guys commandeer an M1 Abrams tank and attack the mall while I'm there? Seriously, these "what if" scenarios are getting way out of hand. The cold, hard fact is, Mr. Terrorist will, in all likelihood, be equipped with a select fire AK-47, loaded with 7.62x39 steel core ammo that will penetrate the wall or car door you're hiding behind and stitch you with alacrity before you can even think of returning fire. Your best bet? Get you and yours as far away as possible, if possible. Let those better trained and equipped deal with the bad guys.

[QUOTE=Lt JL;138820275]Who wants to get shot at? Run away. [QUOTE]

My problem with this is, when I turn tail and run, what's to stop those

chowderheads from shooting me in the butt? So I just leave, and when

suburban mama with her 2 kids and infant are the next folks to arrive

on the scene, what happens then?

What if there were no hypothetical questions?

I fail to see how I would prepare differently for the minuscule likelihood of encountering terrorists with AK's, explosive vests and body armor than I would for any threat.

Alert situational awareness, a gun I can shoot,, a cell phone, a one-hand-opening knife, and a flashlight after dark.

The chances of my needing my gun to defend against some domestic punk are remote, fortunately. The odds against my encountering heavily-armed terrorists are truly enormous.

I'll stay prepared, and if possible beat feet to cover and call 911.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

That sounds like the idiot pol's claim in words to the effect of, "Three rounds from this gun could kill EVERYBODY in this room."

Kalashnikovs aren't Martian death rays. They're just firearms of middling accuracy, usually wielded by not the best marksmen in the world.

If I have the ability to resist, my best bet is never to turn my unarmored back to somebody looking for easy targets.

Getting a select fire AK in the US is easier said than done. They come up for sale occasionally, from someone's collection, and often go for north of $20k. Converting one is by no means rocket science but you'd need access to certain parts which are hard to find and machines to do some work. It's not plug and play. Much easier to just buy a $500 semi auto and pull the trigger very fast a lot of times

Steel core ammo has not been imported in over 20 years. Not something you can just go and buy at your local LGS. You may find some on GB at about a $1/round. Any bullet moving at over 2000fps will penetrate multiple car doors, be it steel core or lead/copper fmj. Makes no difference. A 55gr 5.56 will do the same, so will a 30-30 or any other rifle round or a fast moving handgun caliber

Discussions such as this reminds me of a agency head I worked under.
After the Combine (sic?) Incident He came up with a "Plan" for our agency.
Active School Shooting:
1. respond to the scene
2. set up a outer perimeter
3. wait for the county swat team
I told my supervisor:
a. with active shooting going on in a school, I was going in immediately and -------- the county swat team who might be on a previous call.
b. what brain trust hired this idiot from Howard County Maryland ?
c. I finally made Sergeant under this "Idiot" and his replacement promoted me to Captain. (Patrol Supervisor of course, cause real cops patrol the streets)

I think that his premise (not an entirely unreasonable one) is that the domestic market is largely irrelevant. If they can sneak entire human beings in, sneaking their weapons and ammunition (as well as drugs for raising operating funds) in as well really isn't a big deal.

It's after that that he goes off the rails. Neither an AKM nor a Winchester 94 is a magic death ray. That being the case, it makes literally NO sense for an armed person to play to the STRENGTHS of a rifle armed opponent by creating distance and exposing ones back.

In a mass shooting, the BEST chance for survival by an ARMED person is to CHARGE the enemy, using intermediate cover and concealment to position oneself for the final assault.

Of course most of this "run away! (even though you're armed)" nonsense is premised on the fantasy that the police are going to show up in their TARDIS and protect you as an individual, and keep doing it over and over until no innocent people get killed. I just keep asking them, "How'd that work out in Paris?" Hell, how'd it work out at Virginia Tech?

The police aren't there to protect me from a guy with a knife at the ATM. Why on earth should I think they're going to protect me from a guy with a Kalashnikov? On a good day, response time here is in the 10-20 minute range. How many magazine changes for the killers is that? And that assumes a SINGLE attack site.

I'm willing to sacrifice my life to stop these animals. I wouldn't sacrifice a busted popsicle stick to protect somebody's narrative.

The .416 Rigby, or something like it, is your friend. Dangerous game rifles firing solid bullets machined from solid brass, steel core, tungsten carbide et al will crack and penetrate many rifle plates in armor. If you worry about it, put one in the trunk. They make good sasquatch rifles, which you are as likely to come across as an armor clad Jihadi. Perhaps more so here in Wyoming.

Otherwise, AP ammo for handguns, and certain rifle calibers that can be used in handguns, is restricted in the United States. You can try your luck with the .45 Super, .500 mag or other exotics, but in general not much in the way of handguns will reliably penetrate soft armor, let alone a rifle plate.

The FN 5.7 may be an exception, but only with ammunition sold only to LE and govt.

Anecdotally, a Glock 20 converted to 9x25mm Dillon could penetrate the circa 2004 standard IIIa vests, but since then the newer standards call for being able to stop higher velocity rounds.

Note that I wore concealable armor every day for years. It is not bulky if good quality and properly fit, not does it impede mobility. I have some experience with more...overt...armor proof against rifle rounds. The steel plate sort if heavy, but if you are fit and have trained with it, you can do all sorts of things while wearing armor.

Btw, even a Russian steel helmet left over from WW2 stands a good chance of stopping handgun rounds...and many military style armor systems shield the crotch/pelvis.

I was always puzzled by the behavior of the cops during the West Hollywood bank robbery shoot out.

They seemed fixated on acquiring AR-15s from a local gun shop, when heavy caliber bolt actions would probably have done as well or better for them. I suspect that a couple of shots from a 7mm Rem Mag would have ended things a lot quicker than a couple of magazines of 5.56mm.

Terrorists usually don't wear body armor, but explosive belts which guarentees the 27 virgins. They don't care about their lives and that's what makes them so dangerous! Think of Paris!

I thought it was 72?!?!?!

Yes, and they're all male Star Wars fans...

Don't forget about the North Hollywood shootout. Those people are terrorists and not just run-of-the-mill criminals. And they should get hell!

__________________
Jorge

Arik you missed the memo.

There have been so many terrorists created recently that the number of virgins had to be decreased.

Sort of like what has happened to public employee retirement plans.

In fact, now that I think of it, this virgin thing is a kind of retirement plan for terrorists.

Makes sense!

Going from 72 to 27. Soon it will be 27 but only used once

Sorry but the odds are WAY stacked against the civillian.
It would be RE ACTING against a planned attack and handguns vs rifles, talk about a lose lose situation. I don't care how good you may be on the range when the target & yourself are not constantly moving, people in the line of fire and shots not coming back towards you, range skill would be better than no skill, but not enough to save the day. Get the Bruce Willis die hard fantasy happy endings out of your head. The best you could hope for is to keep you & yours alive. #1 IMO get behind some cover or run away if possible. If returning fire where both parties are moving fast, any hit would be lucky, If more time & a steady firing position, go for a head/pelvic/shoulder shot, but don't count on scoring it. I would not pass up on an opportunity to make a hit anywhere, even if it were only in their pinky toe, as that may be the last shot you could have. A center mass hit may distract/buy some time to make the more difficult shot, by you or someone else.

Sgt. Thomas A. Baker was wounded in action during a Japanese counter attack in 1944. He had early exhausted his rifle ammunition and broke his rifle using it as a club. Refusing evacuation - feeling he would just slow down the man carrying him- he asked for and was given a 1911 pistol with eight rounds of ammunition. His postumous Medal of Honor citation states his body was later recovered from under the tree he was laying against with eight dead Japanese soldiers laying around him.

Even against dedicated opponets with rifles, a stubborn man with a pistol can put up quite a fight.

CMOHS.org - Sergeant BAKER, THOMAS A., U.S. Army

Excellent point.

__________________
Don

With the bad guys with an AK/AR type of arms no handgun in the world is going to do much good, and if the BG's have body armor makes the situation even worse.
That's not saying you shouldn't have the right to try and defend yourself, but the odds aren't in your favor. IF the unlikely event ever happens you have to deal with this type of threat, never be too proud to leave, your best odds are there...

Maybe this one will do the job?

If I'm ABLE to leave, they're not doing it right.

In the Paris theater, the victims had a choice:

• Run and get shot in the back.
• Cower and get shot in the back of the head.

I choose "none of the above".

One thing I guarantee you is that if I survive and some reporter asks me how I did it, my answer WON'T be, "I trampled a five year old to get to the exit."

I carry in order to protect my personal safety and that of my loved ones. I am not obligated to engage any and all threats to the general public. That's the job of law enforcement. If retreating without firing a shot gives me the best chance of waking up tomorrow, that is exactly what I will do.

The idea that any one civilian with a handgun can contribute to the neutralization of a major terrorist threat is delusional.

So, what would have been your plan?

Remembering that you wouldn't have been armed, the attack was perpetuated by three terrorist firing down on the crowd from the Mezzazine. There were approximately 1,500 people at the Bataclan Theatre when the attack started. 89 people were killed, 1,411 survived. So, even despite what would seem like a horrific worst case scenario of "shooting fish in a barrel", the vast majority survived.

The victims had more choices, but since you limited it to two and then said you wouldn't pick either, what exactly would you do?

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

All these posts about what we would do and not do are of little value, IMO.

Nobody knows how they would act in a situation like the French theater.

Plus, if you are in the middle of something like that you won't have a clue what is really going on until a lot of your options are gone.

1. I wouldn't be in France or any place like it where I have a duty to die if somebody wants to murder me. That was my starting premise.
2. I wouldn't be some place similar in the United States where I couldn't carry, least of all now, AFTER a number of high profile terrorist attacks.
3. If I'm some place where I can carry, I will do my best to fire and maneuver, using cover, concealment and deceit to kill as many of the killers as possible.

Not all of the Jews of Europe were killed in the Holocaust either. That didn't make walking into the gas chambers a better idea that resisting. My role models will ALWAYS be the Bielski brothers and Mordechai Anilewicz, NOT those who got on the trains without a fight.

You might not be able to avoid death, but there's no reason to make things easier for your wouldbe murderers.

Aloha,

I know from other treads that some members carry N Frames in calibers like 41, 44 and 45.

Would any of these rounds be More effective against a BG wearing a vest?

I know most likely the rounds will not penetrate, but, wouldn't the impact
slow him down enough for other aimed shots to be effective?

Wouldn't the Bigger, Heavier bullet have a disorienting effect?

Just wondering?

I have no doubt that anybody who takes a 240gr. Winchester Whitebox .44 Magnum in the vest is going to be an unhappy little critter.

Personally, I consider ANY hit with a serious caliber (.38 Special and up) to be to the good. People bleed to death from peripheral wounds, just as they do from center of mass hits. Multiple hits in the thighs from a .38, 9mm or .45 certainly aren't going to ENHANCE somebody's stamina OR powers of concentration.

And there it is. If you haven't been there, you don't know. A real fire fight isn't Call of Duty. There's no reset button if you get hit.

WELL HECK !
NOW, in addition to a straight razor, hand grenade, .45acp with 16 extra magazines (plus being nude) i gotta tote a flame thrower ! just so I can help a terrorist get laid ?
Wouldn't it be easier to give the poor guy $20.00 and drop him off at a busy truck stop ?

But I don't want a ding for encouraging you. To the "if you have never been fired on you wouldn't know" bit, yes there is merit to that line of thought, however anyone can freeze up at any time, regardless of prior experience.

And that's why I sight all my handguns in for 50 yards. If I have to I want to be able to.
Keith

All abled bodied American males in a certain age bracket are technically part of the militia and required, when called upon, to participate in national/public defense. That was the common law before there was a United States and was later codified under Federal law.

Those old Bugs Bunny cartoons where he yells to call out the militia, the Martians have landed, were actually based on a real "thing". There is provision, in case of national emergency, to "call out the militia".

Under most Western religions,pagan as well as Christian sects, a death that comes about in defense of others/the public ranks as a "good" death.

According to an article in American Rifleman no less than 55 Medal of Honor citations went to men armed with 1911s, and at least three others went to men with captured German pistols. These men either prevailed, or went down hard, against trained and motivated opponents armed with rifles, grenades, and automatic weapons.

In one case, during the Battle of the Bulge, three signalmen, armed only with 1911s and no more than the cursory Army pistol training of the day managed to hold off an entire German platoon.

This means other scared, poorly trained Americans - when pressed - gave good accounts of themselves with pistols.

Americans and others without even the benefit of pistols, defeated the AK armed attacker on a Paris train mere months ago.

There is no guarantee that if you fight that you will win.

There's a 100% guarantee that if you DON'T fight that you will LOSE.

My role model is Commander Ernest P. Evans:
Commander Ernest P. Evans

NOT Ray Kelly:
Ray Kelly

Ten times out of ten, I'd rather live up to Evans's example rather than down to Kelly's.

I should have paid more attention to those Saturday morning cartoons when I was a kid.

Heck, I don't know. Practice yer head shots, I guess. What else can you do?

If you have a handgun with you and find yourself in the middle of a terrorist incident, you have the option of using the handgun to protect yourself or others. While I do not want to engage in a face to face shootout with anyone, the possibility exists that a person with a handgun would be to the side or behind a terrorist and have a chance at shooting to stop the terrorist.

Do I think I can draw from concealment and shoot to stop a terrorist presently shooting at me or pointing his AK-47 at me? No I do not. However, at the concert venue in Paris there were over 1,000 people there. Some of them were close enough to the terrorists to have been able to hit the terrorists with a handgun, and some of the people close to the terrorists were behind or to the side of the terrorists.

Unfortunately, we have seen enough incidents to know that passively waiting to be shot does not seem to deter or stop terrorists, and that fighting back seems to reduce the number of casualties. Fighting back by throwing books or chairs is better than nothing, but I do not think it is as good as fighting back with a handgun.

1. Even without a gun, you fight with ANYTHING and EVERYTHING you can. Pen, belt buckle, fists, KILL them before they kill you. To borrow a supposed comment by Miles Davis, I'd rather die with my fingers clenched around one of their throats than running away.
2. If there were other people on the mezzanine, they should have rushed them and tried to throw them off to their deaths.

Like I said, I can't run 2,200 feet per second. Better to run toward them than away.

Some people will never fight. They have never known true evil. In a way I feel pity for them. But then again it's Darwin's theory of ridding the gene pool of cowards.

For various reasons we do not hear much about Flight 93 any more. They all died, but the plane never hit whatever its target was going to be.

Way back when Charles Whitman became pinned down in that tower in part because the citizens of Texas below pulled out their own guns and shot back.

It used to be ingrained as a view of masculinity that you fight when pressed. This was a constant from the days of Rome and even before. The classic "With your shield or on it" or the "Come and take them". This continued into American folklore. The men at the Alamo are remembered, much less so are the guys who surrendered to the Mexicans and were then taken out into a field and shot. We still remember the Viking at Stamford bridge, not the guys who ran away.

The motivation behind these stories was not that one had to be brave. Rather to instill the idea that one ought be more afraid of failure than death, the whole duty burden versus death is as light as a feather thing.

This, along with Americans just being contrary folks, is part of the classic national identity of Americans. And yes even Bugs Bunny - he never sought a fight, but if a fight came to him, he did not run.

I don't think anyone on this thread is saying not to fight back and let you and your family get executed. Definitely fight if you have no choice, but if you can leave the scene safely, I would recommend doing so. The flight 93 folks had no choice. They were given the heads up about what was happening and had to fight back. I definitely would never call the victims of these shootings cowards, but you just might call a man who refuses to go anywhere unarmed one.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sure looks like running was effective for the vast majority.

When I first saw it on "Family Classics" on WGN in Chicago as a child, I never imagined that "The Time Machine" was a documentary.

Of course even the Eloi didn't try to serenade the Morlocks with a piano rendition of "Imagine"...

When George Carlin said it, "Do whatever you want to the girl, just leave me alone!" was meant as parody.

Now it's dogma...

The Tin Can Sailors had a choice. They could have scattered to the four winds and most of them would have survived. The Jeep carriers, transports and men on shore on the other hand...

I didn't call anybody a coward.

Could you explain the "bravery" in WILLINGLY being a disarmed target? I'm sure it impresses some people. I'm equally sure that those are people whom I'd never care about impressing.

Whatever I can say, won't change anyone's mind who is committed to scurry away and hide. As to carrying my weapon where ever I go, well then I am a coward. I've never had the will to be a hero, but I'll never leave a innocent person to face evil by themselves. Gun or no gun. That's all I'm going to say.

Make no mistake; this is a WAR, a war in which there are no non-combatants, only fighters and targets. And EVERYBODY is a potential target, from a baby in a stroller to a Navy SEAL. The question is, given the means and opportunity, "Will you fight back?" For some the answer is "no".

We are either going to destroy these monsters root and branch or we will become their slaves. As in every such conflict, there will always be those eager to take on chains.

From your earlier post.... "I wouldn't be in France or any place like it where I have a duty to die if somebody wants to murder me. That was my starting premise.
I wouldn't be some place similar in the United States where I couldn't carry, least of all now, AFTER a number of high profile terrorist attacks."

I don't let fear rule my life. Let alone fear of something as improbable as a terrorist attack.

There have been many high profile shootings at schools and you can't carry in school zones, so I would find it rather cowardly if someone missed their kid's Christmas play because they couldn't carry a gun to it. No weapons on airliners, so no family vacations or travel for fear of terrorists? What about going to the Post Office? Let someone else mail your packages? AFAIK Concealed carry is off limits at Hospitals, so what if the Wife is admitted or one of the Kiddos is sick? Don't go? No carry in any Federal Buildings, so I guess Grandma will just have to work out those problems with her social security herself. How about armed forces personnel and visitors to U.S. Military bases that willingly disarm?

I'm a grown man with adult responsibilities, things that need done and a duty to my family that is counting on me everyday. Staying at home cowering behind my guns is not an option and no life I would ever want to live.

Maybe, but it appears that you let other people's fear rule your life, as well as fear of their disapproval.

I have no children and I don't fly, mostly because I have no desire to be part of contemptible security theater.

And again, I've yet to call anyone a coward. On the other hand, all this talk of people being "cowards" for NOT wanting to be helpless, disarmed victims strikes me as being strongly rooted in projection...

Developing story so the information may change, but currently unfolding active shooter situation in San Bernardino -- news reporting multiple shooters wearing body armor...


ETA:

Police today confirm no armor -- tactical vests.