Self-Defense at 300 Yards

[Hardtarget]

To me, it comes down to this. Is the shooter trying to shoot me. 200 or 300 yards is not all that much distance. Several shots, with close impact of those rounds, would make me think there was real effort to hit me. Even if he isn't good...an accidental hit can kill just as dead as the most perfectly placed shot. I might return fire just as a survival precaution.

Mark.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

No there aren't. That's why I say preparing for such an incident is like preparing to be kidnapped by aliens. We should spend our time on more important things.

like zombies

It's important to thin the horde before they get to your fortified shelter.
For that, I will use this:

In all seriousness though, I own the above rifle simply because it's fun to shoot. I think allot of self defense fantasies are actually more of an excuse to buy guns that have no purpose other than to have fun shooting them.

 

[Buzzcook]

Mr. Nice guy that is one cool looking evil scary rifle.

And having fun is the best reason to own a gun.

 

[pichon]

And having fun is the best reason to own a gun.

All of my guns were purchased to serve basically one purpose, self/home defense. The only reason I own a .22 is to practice accuracy for self/home defense. Fun is just a byproduct of training.

 

[HiBC]

This is not a story of returned fire,but it is an incident that made me consider carrying a .223 or better.I used to do a lot of river tripping and the Big Bend country in Texas interested me.Then a honeymooning couple and river guide floating the river came under attack from a high bluff on the south side of the border.I think early to mid 80's.Seems like there was at least one death and more serious wounding.I'd carry something capable if I was near that border.
Then,I decided I knew better rivers

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I am not arguing that the need for long range self defense by rifle is likely or imminent, merely that the possibility is constitutionally and morally valid.

I agree that is is constitutionally and morally valid. I am simply asserting that it is a waste of time.

Having the skills, equipment and mindset is a duty to one's self, family, community, and yes, the nation inferred by the second amendment.

No, it isn't. It a right. We have the RIGHT to vote. We have the RIGHT to own guns. We have the RIGHT to pursue happiness. We have the RIGHT to protect our selves and our families. We have no DUTY to do ANY of those things. F-R-E-E-D-O-M. All the men and women who have died for this nation died to guarantee our RIGHT to do all these things. We may choose to do any or all of them simply out of deference to those who died for us (or any other reason) but the memory of those who died is poisoned by the notion that we are to be compelled to act. Making our "rights" into "duties" is antithetical to the very purpose of the document that spells out those rights.

 

[amd6547]

That, my friend Mr. peetsakilla, is the diffrerence between you and I. A right conferred by the Bill of Rights which is not excercised and defended will quickly go away.
In the case of the second amendment, it is clear that the Founders saw the need for the law-abiding citizen to be armed and ready to protect family and Nation from all threats foreign and domestic. This right is an obligation, not defined by law, but by common sense.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

This right is an obligation, not defined by law, but by common sense.

So we should force everyone to be proficient with weapons and own at least one per household? If the answer to that question is "no" then it's a RIGHT not a duty.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be ready and willing. I am, in fact, ready and willing. It's an issue of compulsion. A "right" which becomes compulsory ceases to be a right and becomes a link forged on the chain of slavery.


We have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Are THOSE rights compulsory?
No, we can choose to not be treated for a terminal illness.
We can choose to NOT be free. Don't think so? Tell me that anyone who makes $50k a year and owes $250k on credit cards, car loans and mortgages has "liberty".
We can choose to NOT pursue happiness. Millions of people do that every day. Living their lives in pursuit of nothing at all, in fact.

 

[Wildalaska]

I'll pass on the Rambo duty. I'm not the steely eyed patriot Caped Crusader with my Homeland Defense Rifle ready to engage goblins, I'm the middle aged fat Couch Potato stuffing my face with bagels and kimchee while holding the remote control.

I stopped playing Walter Mitty when I was a teenager, although I do confess to wearing a jockstrap, shoulder pads and a colander over my face every time the Dow drops. Must be prepared.

WildimyourmanAlaska TM

 

[Chris_B]

I don't agree that a right is also a duty

I can choose to exercise a right; I cannot avoid discharging a duty

Not really much more to be said about it

 

[amd6547]

Sad responses, but not surprising. Many Americans sat out the Revolutionary War, doubted it's chances for success, or actively opposed it. Plenty were willing to line up and turn in their muskets when such was demanded by the Brits.
We should all be "steely eyed Patriots", a title I never considered myself to wear, but which I would be proud to do so.

 

[Wildalaska]

Many Americans sat out the Revolutionary War, doubted it's chances for success, or actively opposed it. Plenty were willing to line up and turn in their muskets when such was demanded by the Brits.

O give it a break dude, there isn't no 7th grade civics fife 'n drum tricorning involved here, just a bunch of chest thumping over civilian target engagement at military sniping distances.

WildwhyiseverythingsopoliticalAlaska TM

 

[shortwave]

Picturing seeing Wild Alaska in his jockstrap,shoulder pads and colander at 300 hundred yards has convinced me to start long range shooting again.

 

[amd6547]

My apologies...I happen to take the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the obligations of citizenship seriously. If you don't, that is, as pointed out by peezakilla, your right, and more power to you.
Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):

[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
14 Debates in the House of Representatives
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824
Please note the last line by Mr Jefferson..."Right and Duty"

 

[mavracer]

I'll pass on the Rambo duty. I'm not the steely eyed patriot Caped Crusader with my Homeland Defense Rifle ready to engage goblins, I'm the middle aged fat Couch Potato stuffing my face with bagels and kimchee while holding the remote control.

I wouldn't be anywhere near proud of that fact, and in fact take offense for every American who has bled for you to have the right to sit on your fat A$$.

So we should force everyone to be proficient with weapons and own at least one per household? If the answer to that question is "no" then it's a RIGHT not a duty.

No you shouldn't have to be forced by others.You should expect it of yourself.

 

[Wildalaska]

My apologies...I happen to take the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the obligations of citizenship seriously.

I do too.

I vote. I pay my taxes. I write letters to my congresscreatures. I stay informed. I'm a member of political organizations. I go to work, I keep myself clean, I have no criminal record.

So are you telling me that because I refuse to wear a tinfoil campaign hat and eagerly participate in netthumping over taking potshots at imagined enemies, goblins or zombies at 300 yards that I don't take my obligations as an American citizen seriously?

WilddamnthecolandersfullspeedaheadAlaska TM

 

[mavracer]

So are you telling me that because I refuse to wear a tinfoil campaign hat and eagerly participate in netthumping over taking potshots at imagined enemies, goblins or zombies at 300 yards that I don't take my obligations as an American citizen seriously?

you wan't to be taken seriously while accusing people who voice their patriotic opinions of wearing tinfoil hats?

 

[pax]

To quote the inimitable Tamara:

This thread ceased being about rifles a page ago and has descended into the kind of Mad Max fantasies that give gun owners a rep for not being screwed down too tightly.

Please unstrap the colanders from your faces, people, you aren't the Lords of the Wasteland yet.

This thread is closed.

(To put it more gently: the original thread starter asked a specific question about the history of self defense at 300 yards. Whether or not it's time to start the next American Revolution is very far afield from that topic. As is the mud-flinging debate about who's wearing the tin foil hat, who has the most patriotic underwear, and how many angels can dance on the head of pinhead.)

pax

 

[44 AMP]

serious thread drift

lets get back on topic, or this one is over, ok?