Remember that St. Louis, Missouri, couple who convinced a mostly peaceful protesting group of BLM (or whatever they were mostly peacefully protesting) to get off and stay off their property, an AR-15 and non-function handgun being persuasive?

My excessively over-the-top first sentence triggered a not too important question. My version of what the man used as a persuader is a refurbished and customized copy of Winchester Model 97 trench gun. The only customized part that shows if I want it to is the 1917 bayonet. The huge sharp blade looks intimidating as all get-out, but how effectively it would help control a non-peaceful group of protesters I kind've doubt.

Distance from my front porch to the "neutral" street is a minimum of 25 yards, probably less that the couple distancing. Knowing your 97 holds six rather than five in magazine, firing pin allows safely keeping hammer down on chambered round, and your 12 ga. 2.75-inch factory shot shells hold 15 00 buck rather than the usual maximum 12 — knowing all these hidden enhancements, none of which can be known by the group — which firearm do you feel would be more intimidating to the crowd?

Why?

A 12 G. is always a more formidable choice, regardless of mag. Capacity. Like Bill Jordan said in his book, "No Second Place Winner", "In all my years of law enforcement, one thing I never figured out. What scared a man more, the click/click of a side by side, or the chink chunk of a pump action."

What I have found in 33 years as a LEO.

Sane rational people are impressed when you point most any firearm at them.

It is the crazy, drunks and dopers' who don't give a rats behind.

I can not even come close to counting the number of people who have told me go ahead and shoot me.

Firearms are not instruments of intimidation. Those few who might be intimidated by the display of a gun are not those one needs to be worried about in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by TWL:
Firearms are not instruments of intimidation. Those few who might be intimidated by the display of a gun are not those one needs to be worried about in the first place.

So on high risk stops. Or a high risk situation.

Pointing firearms at the criminals. Is not Trying to intimidate them.

Of course it is. In the context of overwhelming force. But not in the context proffered in the OP.

Perhaps you overlooked that I did not mention or stipulate pointing the weapon at anyone. What interested me is an intimidation factor because of its presence. Although I do not recall whether the couple pointed their weapons at the group, I anticipate their pointing weapons would have be emphasized in public information.

There is the fact that most self-defense uses do not inclued firing the weapon.

I have pointed various firearms at people engaged in criminal activity.

Did it matter to them what I was pointing at them.

I think far more matter that they knew. That I was willing to use what I was pointing at them.

I can think of one rapist that kept on touching his Colt woodsman. Laying on the car seat next to him.

Trying to decide if he could beat me, before I shot him.

Trouble for him was I looking over the sights of my 870 loaded with 00 buck, the safety off, my finger on the trigger. Pointed at his head from about 5 feet away.

He finely understood that, I really was going to shoot him if his hand closed around the grips of said woodsman.

He told me after wards that if he thought, he would have won. He would have tried.

Naphtail / Sir:

Perhaps you failed to notice I, too, did not "mention or stipulate pointing a weapon". In fact, I specifically used the word "display".

Just a few of the articles concerning the issue.


https://www.kcur.org/news/2021...gainst-a-violent-mob

https://www.ammoland.com/2021/...overnor-mike-parson/

https://www.ammoland.com/2020/...-guns-sparks-debate/

quote:

Originally posted by TWL:
Naphtail / Sir:

Perhaps you failed to notice I, too, did not "mention or stipulate pointing a weapon". In fact, I specifically used the word "display".

Point taken, David.

I recall, just as everyone, these events during the madness and S-show of 2020.

I have various opinions based upon my profession (criminal defense lawyer), my advocacy for “proper” gun handling/Second Amendment rights, as a property owner, and as a human. Some are intertwined.

As a lawyer (this is not meant to be legal advice, as each state will have varying laws and this is just commentary), but from reading the articles posted and my recall of the events from almost three years ago, it’s easy to assume many laws were broken. If the protestors/mob/door to door salesmen busted down a gate and then trespassed, those would be illegal acts. It was unclear whether the protestors were armed. Many states have codified the definition of a “weapon.”

As a hypothetical, I doubt many have included skateboard as a weapon (a baseball bat can be), but I’ve seen too many people get the crap beat out of them with a skateboard. Then it goes to the the manner in which an object is used. Same as a baseball bat, tire iron, whatever. The narrative, as with many political issues, is controlled by the media. We can see the Kyle Rittenhouse case as an example.

As far as pointing a firearm at someone as a private citizen, it can likely be construed as a criminal offense in many states. However, there can be affirmative defenses. Also, just “presenting” a firearm in a threatening manner can also be a criminal offense. Likewise, with affirmative defenses.

One of the basic rules of firearms safety we’ve always been taught has always been to not point a gun at something which you do not not intend to shoot.

As a human, I never want to take the life of another human. However, don’t tell that to the person putting those I love in danger.

Although I don’t know him, other than reading his articles and watching his videos for something like 30 years, I suggest watching/reading Ayoob’s work. I’d hire him if I get in that pickle I never want to encounter.

In the end, make the choice you’re damn sure you can make, it can cost money, time, but those things are nothing if done for the right ways.

Many opinions may vary, and this is just a hope you never have to face such a situation.

quote:

One of the basic rules of firearms safety we’ve always been taught has always been to not point a gun at something which you do not not intend to shoot.

One of the problems we had teaching recruits that were long time hunters.

Was getting them to point firearms at another human.

It had been drilled into them don't point a firearm at another human.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

One of the basic rules of firearms safety we’ve always been taught has always been to not point a gun at something which you do not not intend to shoot.

One of the problems we had teaching recruits that were long time hunters.

Was getting them to point firearms at another human.

It had been drilled into them don't point a firearm at another human.

You don’t! It’s simple. ADs happen
In high stress situations.

Now there are LTL options. However, I want the boys in blue to be safe no matter what.