View Single Post
Old December 7th, 2005 #100
Jenab
Senior Goatly One
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
Jenab
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean(doc)martin
You entire premise is based on shooting someone at a distance. Sniping is murder pure and simple and any jury will convict you of such.
Certainly, in this corrupted multiracial country of ours, we're damned (by the jury) if we shoot while shooting is advantageous, but we're damned (by our attacker) if we wait until he makes his intentions plain enough that even a liberal idiot would agree that we might, perhaps, have been entitled to defend ourselves with a gun...what a shame it was too late.

Rather than keep that liberal idiot happy, then: shoot, scoot, and don't yap.

In any situation where a cop might acceptably shoot someone, then so may anyone else, and if the law doesn't like that, then there's something wrong with the law. If you see juries convicting people for doing what they had to do to stay alive, then follow my advice: shoot, scoot, and don't yap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean(doc)martin
A criminal wonít threaten you at 20 feet he will close the distance before he becomes a threat.
That is almost what I said. But it isn't quite what I said. He's a threat at 20 feet, but he's not yet acting like a threat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean(doc)martin
If you shoot someone at 20 feet the prosecuting attorney will show that they were not a threat and you had reasonable distance to get out of harms way.
No, actually. If you turn your back on an enemy, you worsen your position. And 20 feet isn't nearly enough to ensure a getaway by running. A prosecutor who makes this argument is either playing your jury for gullible fools, or he's giving a jury of anti-white muds a figleaf with which to hide the nakedly political motive for their inevitable, preconceived "guilty" verdict.

Potentially, you have two groups of deadly enemies. The first group is that couple of niggers who attacked you on the street. The second group is the jury of leftists and niggers who will decide that you had no right to defend yourself. You can't possibly avoid all the nigs who might try to harm you, but you might avoid that jury. So, again, my advice: shoot, scoot, and don't yap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean(doc)martin
Yes and you bring more reason for tighter gun control thus taking away the future privileges of whites. Then you may cause many others to be victims of groids.
You accomplish nothing by limiting your freedom because of fear of more freedom loss if you don't. At least let ZOG put the prohibitions down on paper. Then...join the criminals! That is, adopt their methods for ensuring their survival vis-a-vis the police and criminal competitors. I don't, of course, advise anyone to adopt the usual goals of criminals: extortion, robbery, drug-dealing, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean(doc)martin
You get caught making one you go to prison no questions asked. That is the worst case the best case if you get an expensive lawyer and get fined $10,000.
You were talking about silencers. Then...don't get caught. When we were discussing silencers, it was in connection with a hypothetical need to remove sentries. Somebody made a rather funny suggestion that a common practice of sneaking up on them from behind, close enough to hit them on the head, was a sensible thing to do. It isn't. A silent, accurate, ranged weapon is required, so you can take out that sentry and not alert his nearby friends.

In most of your objections, I see a common flaw. You project the fear of the law's penalties as a means of obfuscating the immediate threat. But better in prison than dead on the street - and that's assuming you get caught. You might not be. Not every crime is solved. Not every criminal is apprehended. Rather than incur a very large threat of dying the moment you meet an attacker, shoot, scoot, and don't yap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean(doc)martin
Full auto weapons are fantasy guns and a waste of ammo. Every competition shooter I have met has made this claim. I am sure you know the exception. You dump a lot of rounds with the hopes of hitting your target. Everyone knows you canít properly aim a weapon on full auto. As AE said the spray and spray ideology.
Full auto weapons have a valid purpose, and the situation is not that of competition shooting. Full auto shooting sends a stream of bullets at a massed group of attackers in a situation where time is more crucial than conserving ammunition. Each bullet in the spray has a chance of hitting one or more attackers and forcing others to abandon their charge and take cover. Most full auto weapons can be set on semi-auto, in which case they're reasonably precise, if not so precise as some rifles that lack the full-auto feature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean(doc)martin
If you are going to get a gun get a few and master them well. Practice daily. The scenarios you present are under the assumption the shooter is highly trained, experienced and completely calm in a life or death situation. Look at those LA bank robbers. Thousands of rounds fired while wearing body armor and they didnít actually kill anyone other than themselves, I live in America where do you live fantasyland? Remember these were hardened bank robbers who had previously beaten the system and carried illegal weapons. Their opponents were outgunned as well. One trained sniper could have taken both of them, but they were in a fire fight with automatic weapons and body armor and they still didnít kill anyone other than themselves.
You applied a characterization to those bank robbers that defines their shooting skills, their personalities, and their intentions for which you have no actual facts. You fantasized about the nature of bank robbers whom you have never met. You dreamed up why they failed to kill anyone despite firing thousands of rounds.

Were their rounds numbered in the thousands, or did you dream that up too? Who did the counting? Where did you find the total published? Let's see: two bank robbers, and they fired "thousands of rounds"...hm. That's at least fifty mags for each of them, isn't it? Sean, I've read lots of your posts here, and your problem is that you "wing it" too much, and you never expect anyone else to notice the glitches.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean(doc)martin
Again try shooting a moving target under pressure. Then factor in that the lighting may not be so well or the sun could be in your eyes. Your chances are better than you would think.
At 20 feet, I can hit a man-sized target, even if he's on the move.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean(doc)martin
Easy to say difficult to do.
For whom?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean(doc)martin
Luck? I am skilled but that is all I will say about that at this time.
Huff and bluff. I earned a marksmanship ribbon at Hurlbert Field, Eglin AFB in June 1980. I was a member of the Sharon Johnston State Park shooting club for a few years while I lived in Huntsville, AL (1987-1990). Feel free to check.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean(doc)martin
Very true and under ideal conditions a great thing. But how many gun owners are true marksmen who can make perfect shots with bad lighting and life or death pressure? Again I am sure you know the exceptions to the rule.
"Perfect" shots? You mean, like hit a dime at 100' with a revolver? I'm not that good. But I can hit a man at 20' with a revolver almost every time, in any lighting except what is insufficient to see at all, pressure or no pressure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean(doc)martin
Try shooting a moving target at 20 feet. Hang up a cardboard cutout on a clothesline and have someone pull it towards you as it moves in the wind. Now try to shoot it, then have someone pouring cold water down your back this will give you an idea what it is like trying to shoot under pressure. This is also a tactic marine sniper drill instructors use on their students, the cold water thing that is or they usually yell at them while they are trying to make a shot.
Not bad. They should vary the routine though. Slapping your shoulder with a wooden ruler or riding crop, maybe. I could still hit that target, almost every time. You apparently fail to appreciate that 20 feet is easy shooting distance on a mansized target, even with a handgun. Easy, Sean. As in "even you can do it." Even with your off-hand, even in an icestorm. 20 feet is 8 normal steps. Light poles are longer than 20 feet. A two-lane rural highway is usually about 20 feet wide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean(doc)martin
Shooting competition has that much pressure now imagine your target moving with the added pressure that your life is at stake and you are being shot at or directly threatened. Couple that with the fact that you are about to take another life and may face life in prison or the death penalty. The pressure of a life ruining decision makes it that much more intense. Anyone on this board that claims they could be 100% calm and shoot to the best of their ability in that type of situation is a liar.
Nobody shoots "to the best of their ability" except in ideal conditions, such as those found on a range. The point is that 20' is beyond clubbing distance, but it is EASY shooting distance. If you shoot at all, with the intention of hitting a man at that distance, then you will almost always succeed, calm or scared, cold water or none, loud noises or not.

And since corruption of law IS a threat, shoot, scoot, and don't yap. That really is your optimal strategy. If you fail to shoot, you will have to win a fight against an attacker or two who might be too much for you. If you lose, you will die, because they are niggers who want to see you dead. If you win, you have a chance of evading apprehension, SO TAKE IT. If you get caught, THEN you can make your best case. A fair jury might look askance on your attempt to evade arrest, but a corrupt jury will look askance at you for being White, no matter what you did or didn't do or what the circumstances were.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean(doc)martin
Here lies another problem. Just as pressure can cause you to freeze, fear can cause you to shoot to soon. If you are carrying a gun and shoot without being able to prove just cause you will go to prison. If you pull your gun and threaten you will go to jail. Groid criminals can live their life with 20 outstanding warrants, however something like this would cramp most of our lives.
This might not be the sort of world where you can sustain the kind of life you are used to, then. If you're in immediate danger, do your best to get out of it, and cross the next bridge later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean(doc)martin
Then if you justly pull your gun you have to think of the consequences. Well anyway while someone is wildly blasting all 6 rounds in 2 seconds from their pistol, you must think about every round that didnít hit its target. Where does it land? Does it hit someoneís property? Does it hit innocent people?
I'd regret hitting an innocent person with a stray bullet. But I'd regret being killed by an attacker even more (if for not as long). The innocent person's blood is most on his hands, not mine, as they'd have been no need for me to shoot if he had not been a threat to me.

I really don't care about property losses, given the situation. Sure, I'd pay for property damage...assuming that I could do it without being identified to the police. What might keep me from compensating property owners for their losses resulting from my shooting at an attacker is the increased risk of being apprehended by law and made subject to its corrupt workings. Otherwise, I'd happily pay for this busted window, or that blown automobile tire.

And when I said that I could fire six times in two seconds, I meant that I wasn't limited to "one shot" like AE said I'd be. No, I'd have all six shots, if I needed them. I'd shoot until I didn't need to shoot more.

Jerry Abbott

Last edited by Jenab; December 7th, 2005 at 10:54 PM.