fusion

It is not oversimplified. If someone has a knife/gun/club/pipe/broken glass bottle (method), aims/points/swings it toward you (threat), and does not have their hands tied behind their backs (opportunity), they can cause serious physical harm/kill you at will. That is a deadly force situation!

Like the quote that is so prominent around her says "it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6." I have gone before Grand Jury in Franklin Co. before, and if my job requires it again, I will do it again. I will not leave my wife, who has been with me for 22 years nor my 3 small children without a fight! The reality of my job is that every day at least 1 person in this city would kill myself or one of my fellow officers if given the opportunity. It makes no sense to pretend that I am Chuck Norris when the situation dictates lethal force.

Yup. Except in some situations you don't have time to pull your weapon...hence over simplified.

You missed the spelling in Justin's post.

No willfully ignored it.

I think we're missing the bigger picture here.

It's much more satisfying to kill a man with your bare hands than your bear arms.

They can't handle it, it's too personal to go hand-to-hand. They prefer stay at a distance so they can pretend they are playing Call of Duty.

until you can behead a midget with a deadly frisbee from 2 miles away, ninja is OUR word

Heh 2 miles. YOU people and your overkill. We'll never be true ninja in your eyes no matter how hard we try.

I understand that the intention is to disable and not kill. However, if there is a person with a knife taking an agressive posture toward you THEIR intention is to KILL not DISABLE. If they only wanted to fight, the knife would have never come out. If they didn't want a confrontation to begin with, they would have just left. My point was that if you are in that situation, you are in a better postion if you have a superior weapon. There is a 3 prong test for deadly force in law enforcemnt. That test is method, threat, and opportunity. If you meet all three prongs, you should not be going hands on, you should be shooting!

Most of that is 'uh yeah duh', up until the "should be shooting" part. That's a bit oversimplified.

Wow... I look forward to being able to carry in places that serve alcohol. I do not drink so disarming just because I am around people that drink makes no sense to me. If that were the case I would not be able to carry 50% of the time. And yes, I would have shot him if he did not stop when the gun was pulled. I would not want to try and disarm a man with a knife; I have seem the outcome many times. One level above the other guy is good for me! But hey, if someone wants to try and stop him with their hands, who am I to prevent that...

I actually wish they would make it so you can carry concealed in bars that allow it. I think it should be (as long as you aren't drinking) you should be able to carry in any establish were the owner (or agent) of the establishment allows it. Period.

I think your disregard for this last part of his comments anwers that question.

Nice ninja edit BTW... Totally screwed up my post.

I'm a ninja after all.

Not a ninja edit BTW, just unintentionally hit 'Submit Reply' while clicking around.

Are you cia or a supercop fusion?

No I'm a ninja, get it straight.

I did not say anything about firing into a group of people nor did I say anything about disarming him. I was making the illistration that I am indeed trained for this situation. Your initial statement was: "Except that some of us have actually trained in actual self defense including in dealing with things like disarming an attacker with a knife." My statment was: "I have to tell you that only a F-ing retard is going to intentionally take on an armed attacker unarmed if there is another means to bring an end to the confrontation."

I don't know how many bar fights you have broken up in your time, but I will tell you that I have broken up HUNDREDS. Some of those were in college bars and others were in thug bars that you wouldn't come within a mile of the neighborhood. Also, I have had to disarm a couple of armed suspects (by hand), in real life situations as part of my job. That being said, I stand by my statment that "only a F-ing retard is going to intentionally take on an armed attacker unarmed if there is another means to bring an end to the confrontation."

The day that you have had to go hand to hand with an armed suspect that ends with one of you going home and one leaving in a bag, come and talk to me. Until that day, you are only living with delusions of grandeur .

I like the assumption that I haven't, no one in a body bag though. The point is to disable not kill 99.999999% of the time. Unless you've had shitty training of course.

I'm going with my dad and sitting in on the CHL course on the 20th. We'll see how it goes with a bunch of ORDN folks.

And the points you bring up are why groups such as Ohioans for Concealed Carry and Buckeye Firearms are working so hard. This is why so many people who do carry regularly try to help educate those that don't carry or the new people.

I really have more to say but I gotta get off lunch and back to work.

Groups like BFA and the rest need to take a politically neutral stance while lobbying for gun rights and education at the same time. You're not going to get as much support for the left or even moderate gun supporters if there are signs every where decrying 'liberal gun grabbers'.

I can't disagree with you on this. It somewhat terrifies me that some people I know are allowed to carry firearms. Though which is worse; them having the gun or just the criminals?

How about neither? Really a lot of people aren't going to hit the criminal to begin with. They will draw fire, kill their own child and sue the state. OK so may be a little extreme of an example, but I personally don't want morons operating weapons. Those are the types of people that have "accidents".

There is more instruction in the MSF course then there is for getting a CHL. Hell it's harder to get a drivers license than to get a CHL in this state. I'm afraid these people are going to kill me just driving to work, I'm not sure I want those same idiots with a gun in their car.

Wait... I thought open carry didn't deter crime?

My first thought as well. I wish more people would open carry.

But, but, but I thought it was just a bunch of pussies with sticks that couldn't hit shit??

No they just swing like girls. Pussies.

I'm trained in self defense against an attacker with edged weapons also, and that training includes disarming that suspect. But I have to tell you that only a F-ing retard is going to intentionally take on an armed attacker unarmed if there is another means to bring an end to the confrontation. It is one thing if you are forced into that situation, but if at all possible, you should go in at least on a level playing field. Personally, I prefer to have superior firepower!

Nothing like firing bullets into a group of people... it's just awesome. Only a f-ing retard thinks that disarming hand-to-hand is your only option in a situation like this.

Military. I also don't go to actual ranges, I use private property.

Yeah go hang out with all those others in ranges, and sit/visit a couple of classes and range sessions with people going through their courses, most are down right frightening that I've seen. Even my wife after we got through with our course thought it was nuts that most of the people there would be carrying. My Dad's was the same way when I went and visited his to shoot with him after they were done at another place.

Maybe at first CHL carriers were like you, I and a good number of people on here. In general though it looks like more and more are just regular people, some of which haven't even owned a weapon before taking their 12 hours and going through the joke it takes to qualify shooting.

Sorry I didn't type that correctly. What I meant it they don't want everyone required to carry a gun.

No you typed it right the first time. Most gun advocates don't think EVERYONE should have the right to own/carry a weapon... mentally challenged (more so than us that is), violent felons, cosplayers,...

So what about the states allowing individuals the right to carry a concealed firearm without a special license issued by the state? And the ones considering this?

Fair enough. Leave it to the states to decide this level of firearm permission. It's where it belongs.

No. everyone should have the right to learn Shaolin Kung Fu not be forced to.

You've never seen Kung Fu Panda have you? EVERYONE should have to be trained in Shaolin Kung Fu, it'll be just like mandatory military service in Switzerland and Israel.

Wait. Why are you assuming someone with a gun hasn't trained with it?

How many ranges have you been to? Did you take your CCW course with a group of friends or with a group of everyday fine citizens?

No. Most gun owners, not all, don't say they want EVERY person carrying a gun. They want everyone to have the right and the choice to do so and not overly mandated by the government when the Second Amendment is in place to begin with.

OK guns laws are easing and not increasing. Like you said most gun owners agree not EVERY person should be carrying a gun. So how do you manage that?

And don't bring the 2nd into this. Activist judges even agree conceal and everyday carry isn't covered by it. Just the ownership in your home. That's why those things are managed at the state level.

On the flip side many anti-gun people, again not all, don't want anyone to have a gun. No choice just you can't own one.

So you're basically saying what I said. Some not all, some not all. Applies to both sides. Now you need to find compromise.

I don't give a shit if you want to carry a gun or not. But I want you to have the right to do so. But because you are scared of the big bad gun, you don't want me to have one?? (I only say "you" theoretically)

I think all guns are bad and should be banned. Everyone should also be forced to learn Shaolin Kung Fu, have to battle their disagreements on a raised platform surrounded by spikes and aired on PPV.

Thought you guys were reading before posting.

I did, but in my head using means the attacker is unconscious, disabled or dead, not being held off so the "rescuers" are injured also. Idiots.

Pussies couldn't even swing a pool stick hard enough to disable one guy.

No doubt' date=' someone couldn't have taken a pool cue to the back of the guys head? [/quote']

If you're not the one being attacked, that sort of thing is usually a decent first answer no matter your level of training.

Really? You're just trolling at this point. I'll feed the troll.

Fine, go get jumped at the bar by someone with a knife. Be sure to videotape it for us. I want to see how you do so much better in a real life situation versus a guy with a knife. Come on Chuck Norris. Hell, I'll even go with you. I'll do the videotaping. And don't worry, I won't jump in and ruin it for you and have your back. I know you'll be all good with your self defense training.

A you're cute to think I would want someone with who doesn't know what they're doing to have my back. Last thing I need is to have to protect you while dealing with the attacker.

Truth is, nobody knows whether they could've done any better or worse. But I'd bet money on the guy with a gun over the guy with a knife any day. As for the guy without any weapons against the guy with a knife, well you better know something the general public doesn't or you're fucked. God forbid he's had the same self defense training you've had.

Most people don't go through the effort of training. Having to work at something is hard and all that...but, yeah so carry a gun right?

None of you guys would have done shit, gun or no gun, because you have enough sense not to go to a thug bar on a sunday night.

That's probably a valid point.

Like I said, we can just agree to disagree.

Way to cut and run...

Make sure you hold it sideways or point it straight up to increase accuracy.

One in each hand, twin GLOCK fortiez...

And it's your right to decide whether you want to carry or not.

Uh ok, yeah.