Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Old Dominion, Red Section
Originally Posted by KYMike
This isn't personal, just an observation, but I would expect more from a tactical instructor. Underestimating your opponent is the surest way to lose a battle...and fast.
The arrogance shown in your post indicates you're living in a dream world. In a perfect world, maybe only some of your opponents will be armed, maybe you'll be better trained, maybe you'll have the first shot, and maybe you'll find cover. Then again, in a perfect world, you wouldn't be attacked in the first place. Statistically, armed robbers, carjackers, rapists, and kidnappers are more likely to have experience robbing, carjacking, raping, and kidnapping than a victim is to have experience defending themselves against such attacks, and experience is the best training.
So you need to plan on all of them being armed (better than you are), they'll have better skills, they'll get the drop on you, and they'll have cover and you won't. Plan for that, and you'll be all the more prepared when you do have cover and you do see them coming, but never assume, never get complacent, never think you're better than your opponent in any aspect. Respect wins battles, arrogance loses lives.
Short answer to the OP, yes, I feel undergunned with the snub, as I feel undergunned with ANY handgun. Do I carry the snub anyway...sure, lots of times. Only you can prevent forest fires, and only you can decide how much is enough to protect your family.
You're entitled to your opinion. How one trains and prepares for a fight we hope will never come does not equal a dispassionate analysis of the overwhelming majority of criminals and criminal assaults. Show me an example of where several thugs have trained together, armed themselves in overwhelming firepower and complementary systems, and then have performed during a fight like a tactical team would. It simply doesn't happen much. North Hollywood is about the only example I can think of, and that was pretty much unique. And they weren't mugging an individual - they were robbing a bank. Newhall, Miami, hell even Columbine don't apply. And most criminals' experience has been with UNARMED, UNTRAINED victims. That doesn't prepare them to win against a warrior.
The question was, is it reasonable to believe that one man can overcome three. My response is, unequivocally, yes, as long as their training, equipment and spirit are up to the task. That ain't arrogance - it's simple fact. History is replete with examples of when it has happened. So much for your "dream world" assertion.
And yes, I agree - one is undergunned carrying only a snub. That was the point.
"The sum of virtue is to be sociable with them that will be sociable, and formidable to them that will not." - Hobbes
Last edited by Gunboat1; 03-16-2008 at 14:48..