[trustnoone.45]

Good opinion

[chesterwin]

A friend who served in Viet Nam once told me he would've much rather had a Ruger 10-22 than the M16 he carried. Simple explanation was: he could've carried a heck of a lot more ammo, the firefights he was in were all close quarters and the .22 LR would have done the job just fine.

[sea_chicken1]

It's like trying to kill a man with a butter knife vs a Kbar. If it were me i would go with something a little bigger. A .22 is great for hunting and survival in the woods but agains man i would put my money on the guy with the .223 or .308.

[TACAV]

Quote:       Originally Posted by chesterwin

A friend who served in Viet Nam once told me he would've much rather had a Ruger 10-22 than the M16 he carried. Simple explanation was: he could've carried a heck of a lot more ammo, the firefights he was in were all close quarters and the .22 LR would have done the job just fine.

Thats interesting, the vet you know wanted a lighter smaller round that he could carry more of in that close quarters fighting while an Iraq vet I know of told me he wanted a heavier harder hitting round to drop people as fast as possible in his close quarters urban fighting. Something like the AK round but with the ergonomics of his M4.

Not saying ones more right over the other, just very different opinions on the matter from two people with similar experiences.

[Metronome]

Quote:       Originally Posted by TexasT

My opinion is everybody running around thinking there's going to be some kind of end of the world, retreat to the woods, bombs exploding overhead chaos is probably highly delusional. I mean seriously. How often does this renegade stuff happen? We're not living in a sci fi movie. And why would you ever think about how to off fellow Americans? Actually, it's a bit disturbing if you want to sit in a tree and pump holes into somebody 100 yards who is probably just looking for food or cover. Most self defense happens within 7 feet anyway. Unless you're in the military, how many of us are actually ever faced with those situations here in America? I think a chaos situation is more likely to happen in a big city with lots of people, not the boonies. A troop of vigilantes is not going to come hunting for you out in the woods. They'd much rather kill a lot of people in the city. Preparing for something more realistic is the way to go. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Ahem: Zombies - it's not a matter of if, it's when!

[tommy]

the vet in iraq wanted to punch through walls to reach his target the vet in vietnem wanted to pop through leaves and basicly spray the jungle hoping to hit something because he really never seen who he was shooting at.

Quote:       Originally Posted by TACAV

Thats interesting, the vet you know wanted a lighter smaller round that he could carry more of in that close quarters fighting while an Iraq vet I know of told me he wanted a heavier harder hitting round to drop people as fast as possible in his close quarters urban fighting. Something like the AK round but with the ergonomics of his M4. Not saying ones more right over the other, just very different opinions on the matter from two people with similar experiences.

[big shrek]

Quote:       Originally Posted by TACAV

Thats interesting, the vet you know wanted a lighter smaller round that he could carry more of in that close quarters fighting while an Iraq vet I know of told me he wanted a heavier harder hitting round to drop people as fast as possible in his close quarters urban fighting. Something like the AK round but with the ergonomics of his M4. Not saying ones more right over the other, just very different opinions on the matter from two people with similar experiences.

I carried an M-60...I think half of it is dependant on the size of the person carrying it. 10 belts of 7.62 is perfectly handleable IF the person is FIT!! Add an ammo bearer of goodly size and you've got a team that can REALLY keep up sustained fire.

Height/strength definitely come into play. A tall, muscular guy can carry a lot more than a skinny beanpole...but a skinny beanpole is also likely to carry more than a 5'9 shrimp, as well.

Bottom line, if you can hump it, use it. If you can't hump it, get an M-16...If you can't hump an M-16 & 10 30-rd mags, it's WAY past time to get into the gym and time to start looking into a Hover-round.

[Sam Ruger]

Quote:       Originally Posted by TACAV

Thats interesting, the vet you know wanted a lighter smaller round that he could carry more of in that close quarters fighting while an Iraq vet I know of told me he wanted a heavier harder hitting round to drop people as fast as possible in his close quarters urban fighting. Something like the AK round but with the ergonomics of his M4. Not saying ones more right over the other, just very different opinions on the matter from two people with similar experiences.

Wheras, in Afghanistan, you'd want the longest hitting sniper rifle you could find (The Barratt .416?) because there's nothing between you and your distant opponent but open space.

I imagine the difference comes down to the fact that, in Vietnam, what was between you and your opponent was mostly foliage. In which case, whoever had the most ammunition won as you shot your way through it. In Iraq, you'd need heavy firepower to shoot through walls, doors, and windows. In Afghanistan, you have to hit some guy a mile away.

[Sam Ruger]

Quote:       Originally Posted by JMcDonald

As far as that last point, I think you might actually be right. If firing four shots, from a "stopping" standpoint a hit the the shoulder is probably not wholely more effective than a miss by the ear. The main reason for starting at the chest at close range is because it is a larger target to start with. But I guess if I start aiming for the head there is a greater chance of a quicker stop.

OK. You're describing aiming for "center of mass". This theory was first developed due to inaccurate pistols (Duels fought at twenty paces usually ended in a draw because both parties missed, allowing each party to safely defend their honor.).

The pistol was originally designed for actual combat at about 8 feet. And, at 8 feet, you have to stop the other guy, first shot, or risk death (usually by bayonet in those days). Black powder pistols had to be a minimum of .40 caliber to accomplish this. Nor did they accomplish it very well.

With the advent of smokeless powder, most pistols were reduced to .38 caliber to reduce the recoil of the comparable .40's - Until police found that people hit by .38's could still shoot back. A similar discovery was made for the 9mm parabellum. Police had to either switch to either a heavier bullet or add more rounds in the magazine and go semi-auto. They opted for the latter. A .22 round has far less hiting power than either of these rounds.

Yet, for those of us with .22's, this theory does not apply. We don't have an 8 foot weapon. Ours is very precise. Just use that precision (lack of recoil) to aim for the neck or the head. If the other guy is shooting back with a .40 Glock, he's aiming for body shots due to his recoil. You'll kill him with one shot to the head. It's unlikely he'll kill you with one to the body. You may be on the way to the ER but he's on his way to the morgue.

But, if you try and change that and shoot for the body, his .40 Glock will send you to the morgue and, when your .22 sends him to the ER, he'll probably drive himself there.

A .22 will stop a 3-7 pound animal by body shot. Even a velocitor has a maximum 20 pound rating. The problem with the .22 round is that it causes insufficient bleeding. The flesh closes back in place over the small wound. Surgeons often can't find .22 bullets by wound path. It's too small to follow and there’s no bleeding for the last few inches.

Do the math and change your aim. Your weapon will make the shot. Shoot twice (There is the possibility of the first round being deflected by the curvature of his skull) and aim above the eyes to kill or the neck to disable (But if you aim to disable, expect him to be suing you from a wheelchair in court.). A 22 has an enormous impact on a human skull - far more than a .38 or .40 - due to 100% of the energy being transferred. The shock wave puts the opponent down on the spot. You can drop a 2000 pound bull with a .22 short instantly.

The second golden rule of what to do when armed with a .22 and faced by an opponent with a .40 Glock, or whatever, is simple:

"When in a hurry, take your time."

Follow the rule and he's dead.

The odds are way in your favor. Of course, the first golden rule of what to do when armed with a .22 and faced by an opponent with a .40 Glock (or whatever) is also pretty simple:

Run like Hell!

[TexasT]

^You made me think of a something possibly not mentioned in this thread yet. Putting 2 in the chest and 2 in the head is going to be looked at as murder and not self defense, especially if you're in close range. Forensic pathologists can tell the range and angle you're shooting from. Pumping somebody full of an entire mag of .22s is going to be looked at as murder. Self defense probably gets suspicious after bullet 3. If your gun ain't gonna cut it in 3 bullets then you might want to upgrade.

Actually, thinking about pumping someone full of an entire mag of .22s suggests that you intend to murder them rather than just stopping them. If you shoot them and they fall and can't harm you anymore is one thing. Emptying your gun's capacity into a person is murder. Perhaps unless you're using a revolver. Taking head shots at somebody from 100 yards is probably also going to be viewed as murder. Unless of course they are pointing a gun at you from the same distance. But I will say again, when does this actually happen besides in war? And if it happens in war I'd hope our soldiers were using something more powerful and with a longer range.

If they die they die, if they don't oh well. Self defense is not about killing people. And from what this sounds like you are planning ways to kill people. Disturbing. My suggestion to you would be to stop plotting ways to kill people. It makes the site look bad and it makes you look bad. Self defense is a serious matter, not a fantasy. If the only way your gun can cut it is a shot to the brain, it's time to upgrade.

[tommy]

yup if your far enough away to slowly and carefuly aim your shots then you was far enough away to run away!! there for you just comitted murder if you shoot they guy. i think the only way you can get away with shooting someone in self defence would be if you had no retreat meaning you was in a wide open field and he was shooting at you and you had to shoot back or if it was a situation where he was within 25 yrds of you and closing other than that you can you can look for some murder charges. as for as unloading the mag on them i don't see why not if a cop can do it and get away with it so can we if the guy is still moving even if it's his nerves you have the right to put him down and secure your safety after all he was just trying to kill you.

Quote:       Originally Posted by TexasT

^You made me think of a something possibly not mentioned in this thread yet. Putting 2 in the chest and 2 in the head is going to be looked at as murder and not self defense, especially if you're in close range. Forensic pathologists can tell the range and angle you're shooting from. Pumping somebody full of an entire mag of .22s is going to be looked at as murder. Self defense probably gets suspicious after bullet 3. If your gun ain't gonna cut it in 3 bullets then you might want to upgrade. Actually, thinking about pumping someone full of an entire mag of .22s suggests that you intend to murder them rather than just stopping them. If you shoot them and they fall and can't harm you anymore is one thing. Emptying your gun's capacity into a person is murder. Perhaps unless you're using a revolver. Taking head shots at somebody from 100 yards is probably also going to be viewed as murder. Unless of course they are pointing a gun at you from the same distance. But I will say again, when does this actually happen besides in war? And if it happens in war I'd hope our soldiers were using something more powerful and with a longer range. If they die they die, if they don't oh well. Self defense is not about killing people. And from what this sounds like you are planning ways to kill people. Disturbing. My suggestion to you would be to stop plotting ways to kill people. It makes the site look bad and it makes you look bad. Self defense is a serious matter, not a fantasy. If the only way your gun can cut it is a shot to the brain, it's time to upgrade.

[TexasT]

Quote:       Originally Posted by tommy

yup if your far enough away to slowly and carefuly aim your shots then you was far enough away to run away!! there for you just comitted murder if you shoot they guy. i think the only way you can get away with shooting someone in self defence would be if you had no retreat meaning you was in a wide open field and he was shooting at you and you had to shoot back or if it was a situation where he was within 25 yrds of you and closing other than that you can you can look for some murder charges. as for as unloading the mag on them i don't see why not if a cop can do it and get away with it so can we if the guy is still moving even if it's his nerves you have the right to put him down and secure your safety after all he was just trying to kill you.

Yeah, but cops can get away with more than a normal law abiding citizen.

[JMcDonald]

Quote:       Originally Posted by TexasT

^You made me think of a something possibly not mentioned in this thread yet. Putting 2 in the chest and 2 in the head is going to be looked at as murder and not self defense, especially if you're in close range. Forensic pathologists can tell the range and angle you're shooting from.

We aren't talking about typical home defense scenarios, hence the title of the thread indicating "SHTF" events. Getting tried for murder in these situations is probably going to be the last thing on everyone's mind. I doubt forensic pathologists are going to be walking around analyizing every dead body they see. Even if we were talking about a simple HD scenario, thankfully I live in a castle doctrine state where they couldn't prosecute me for shooting someone in SD in my own home. It wouldn't matter if I shot them 10 times before they fell.

Also, nobody was talking about "two to the chest and two to the head." I was saying start at the chest and drag the fire upwards until they fall. And he was saying fire multiple shots directly to the head to insure a quick stop.

Quote:       Originally Posted by TexasT

Pumping somebody full of an entire mag of .22s is going to be looked at as murder. Self defense probably gets suspicious after bullet 3. If your gun ain't gonna cut it in 3 bullets then you might want to upgrade.

That is a silly statement to say that "after 3 shots, you will be considered a murderer." I won't stop shooting until they fall. If they fall after one or two or three shots, great. Would you say that if I shot someone 3 times and they didn't fall down, I should just sit there and wait until they bleed to death, in order to avoid the instant murder charge if I fire a fourth shot? If some crackhead busted through your back door and kept coming at you after three shots to the torso (say a shoulder hit, a lung hit, and a gut hit), would you cease firing for fear of "murdering" him?

And when did anyone say anything about "pumping an entire mag of .22's" into an attacker?

Quote:       Originally Posted by TexasT

Actually, thinking about pumping someone full of an entire mag of .22s suggests that you intend to murder them rather than just stopping them. If you shoot them and they fall and can't harm you anymore is one thing. Emptying your gun's capacity into a person is murder.

How did you come to the conclusion we were talking about shooting people already lying on the ground? And why do you keep talking about emptying entire magazines? We even just spent the last several posts covering the most efficient use of only a few rounds, not spraying entire magazines at every threat we come across.

Quote:       Originally Posted by TexasT

Taking head shots at somebody from 100 yards is probably also going to be viewed as murder. Unless of course they are pointing a gun at you from the same distance. But I will say again, when does this actually happen besides in war?

What about "SHTF event" do you not understand? Hypothetical or not, if you don't want to talk about it, then don't. Some of us enjoy the mental excersize, so why not just leave us to it, instead of coming here and telling us we are all stupid, crazy murderers?

Quote:       Originally Posted by TexasT

If they die they die, if they don't oh well. Self defense is not about killing people. And from what this sounds like you are planning ways to kill people. Disturbing. My suggestion to you would be to stop plotting ways to kill people. It makes the site look bad and it makes you look bad. Self defense is a serious matter, not a fantasy.

Okay, you need a reality check. The only way to physically incapacitate an attacker is to disable the central nervous system (the brain). The only way to disable the nervous system is to either damage that system itself (the brain or, in rare cases, the spine itself), or damage one of its support systems. That means either the circulatory or the respiratory system must be disabled. For us to deem someone a threat, we must recognize his or her ability to immediately cause great bodily harm, or death. Thus, we must be able to immediately stop the threat, which means doing heavy damage to either the circulatory system (lots of quick blood loss), to the respiratory system (destroyed wind pipe or lungs), or directly to the brain / spine itself.

But, did you know that even with a completely destroyed heart, a human can maintain full strength and mobility for up to 15 seconds? I'd bet a crackhead with one of your filet knives could do quite a bit of damage in that amount of time, wouldn't you think?

I don't really want to have to wait 30 seconds for a man to finally go down after even a shot through the heart or jugular. So, ESPECIALLY with the .22, that is why it is necessary to aim for the head to insure the quickest possible stop and thus greatly increase the chances of your own survival.

Do you honestly think that Hollywood accurately portrays gunshot wounds and the victim's reactions, where every shot causes the victim to collapse to the ground instantly? Do you really expect an attacker to fall into a heap on the ground after a single shot to the torso and, after the cops get there and handcuff him, get up and walk himself to the squad car? As you really seem to believe these things, it is actually you who is living in a fantasy world. Sure, some people will quite possibly faint simply from a hit to the shoulder, or at least give up. Others, specifically those altered by drugs (or a virus or parasite or whatever, heh), might be much more resiliant to the pain of the wound and only fall when their brain can't tell their feet to run, arms to swing, or finger to pull.


That we use the word "kill" instead of "stop" is being nothing more than realistic.



Finally, since when did discussing the most effective use of firearms become the equivalent of "plotting ways to kill people?" I guess we should throw all those tactical firearms instructors in jail? Hell, why don't we disband the NRA and throw its leaders in jail for sending me this "personal firearm defense" DVD? Maybe all those ammunition manufacturers should be sued because they spend lots of money developing more efficient, expanding bullets which is apparently conspiracy to commit murder?



*edit*


And this isn't to say I expect to have to run around fighting mobs of people and sniping people 100 or 300 or 500 yards away. I don't, and most of the time I think it is ridiculous to expect and prepare to do so. Hell, I have been a huge proponent of running before fighting at even medium distances. The ENTIRE original point of this thread was my desire to keep a .22lr for a true survival situation (food gathering, etc), for many reasons (noise, ammo size / weight, muzzle flash, etc), but my concerns about its potential effectiveness against man should the need arise. I have since learned that with a little more effort than a more powerful gun (head shots only, pretty much), it can do the job.

Another point. Would you say that me hitting someone in the head with a .22lr would be murder, but hitting someone in the chest with a 12g, 3" buckshot load would be "self defense?" Obviously anyone who chooses a 12g for SD, and then chooses the most powerful defensive loadings for it, is definately expect to do some serious damage (and thus probably kill) to whoever he might shoot at.

Or, hell, does aiming for center mass carry the same connotation that the shooter wants to murder his target? Should we all only aim at the feet as to only "dissuade" the attacker without risking killig him? But then again... that could be considered intentionally attempting to maim the victim, still making the shooter a "bad person?"

[TexasT]

Quote:       Originally Posted by JMcDonald

We aren't talking about typical home defense scenarios, hence the title of the thread indicating "SHTF" events. <<snip>>

I read this and didn't bother reading any further. You live in the boonies, dude. Ain't no zombie terrorists coming after you! You have no concept as to what a real SHTF event actually is. Your SHTF is largely fantasy. Somebody been watching too many movies?

[Roper1911]

.22 LR? I've got a Mossberg 702. my neighbors have a Mossberg 702, I personally would not use my .22 for long range, get a 'Smart water' bottle, steel mesh, a 1/4' steel bar, duct tape, 0000 steel wool, and cotton balls, put on your Ghillie and pick them off one by one... the only thing is my neighbors also have got a .50 BMG bolt-action, and a semi-auto .30-06, so not many would get through to me.

And yes, i live in the boonies.

[larmus]

damn TT did someone piss in your wheaties this morning...

[Dragunov]

Quote:       Originally Posted by JMcDonald

We aren't talking about typical home defense scenarios, hence the title of the thread indicating "SHTF" events. Getting tried for murder in these situations is probably going to be the last thing on everyone's mind. I doubt forensic pathologists are going to be walking around analyizing every dead body they see. Even if we were talking about a simple HD scenario, thankfully I live in a castle doctrine state where they couldn't prosecute me for shooting someone in SD in my own home. It wouldn't matter if I shot them 10 times before they fell. Also, nobody was talking about "two to the chest and two to the head." I was saying start at the chest and drag the fire upwards until they fall. And he was saying fire multiple shots directly to the head to insure a quick stop. That is a silly statement to say that "after 3 shots, you will be considered a murderer." I won't stop shooting until they fall. If they fall after one or two or three shots, great. Would you say that if I shot someone 3 times and they didn't fall down, I should just sit there and wait until they bleed to death, in order to avoid the instant murder charge if I fire a fourth shot? If some crackhead busted through your back door and kept coming at you after three shots to the torso (say a shoulder hit, a lung hit, and a gut hit), would you cease firing for fear of "murdering" him? And when did anyone say anything about "pumping an entire mag of .22's" into an attacker? How did you come to the conclusion we were talking about shooting people already lying on the ground? And why do you keep talking about emptying entire magazines? We even just spent the last several posts covering the most efficient use of only a few rounds, not spraying entire magazines at every threat we come across. What about "SHTF event" do you not understand? Hypothetical or not, if you don't want to talk about it, then don't. Some of us enjoy the mental excersize, so why not just leave us to it, instead of coming here and telling us we are all stupid, crazy murderers? Okay, you need a reality check. The only way to physically incapacitate an attacker is to disable the central nervous system (the brain). The only way to disable the nervous system is to either damage that system itself (the brain or, in rare cases, the spine itself), or damage one of its support systems. That means either the circulatory or the respiratory system must be disabled. For us to deem someone a threat, we must recognize his or her ability to immediately cause great bodily harm, or death. Thus, we must be able to immediately stop the threat, which means doing heavy damage to either the circulatory system (lots of quick blood loss), to the respiratory system (destroyed wind pipe or lungs), or directly to the brain / spine itself. But, did you know that even with a completely destroyed heart, a human can maintain full strength and mobility for up to 15 seconds? I'd bet a crackhead with one of your filet knives could do quite a bit of damage in that amount of time, wouldn't you think? I don't really want to have to wait 30 seconds for a man to finally go down after even a shot through the heart or jugular. So, ESPECIALLY with the .22, that is why it is necessary to aim for the head to insure the quickest possible stop and thus greatly increase the chances of your own survival. Do you honestly think that Hollywood accurately portrays gunshot wounds and the victim's reactions, where every shot causes the victim to collapse to the ground instantly? Do you really expect an attacker to fall into a heap on the ground after a single shot to the torso and, after the cops get there and handcuff him, get up and walk himself to the squad car? As you really seem to believe these things, it is actually you who is living in a fantasy world. Sure, some people will quite possibly faint simply from a hit to the shoulder, or at least give up. Others, specifically those altered by drugs (or a virus or parasite or whatever, heh), might be much more resiliant to the pain of the wound and only fall when their brain can't tell their feet to run, arms to swing, or finger to pull. That we use the word "kill" instead of "stop" is being nothing more than realistic. Finally, since when did discussing the most effective use of firearms become the equivalent of "plotting ways to kill people?" I guess we should throw all those tactical firearms instructors in jail? Hell, why don't we disband the NRA and throw its leaders in jail for sending me this "personal firearm defense" DVD? Maybe all those ammunition manufacturers should be sued because they spend lots of money developing more efficient, expanding bullets which is apparently conspiracy to commit murder? *edit* And this isn't to say I expect to have to run around fighting mobs of people and sniping people 100 or 300 or 500 yards away. I don't, and most of the time I think it is ridiculous to expect and prepare to do so. Hell, I have been a huge proponent of running before fighting at even medium distances. The ENTIRE original point of this thread was my desire to keep a .22lr for a true survival situation (food gathering, etc), for many reasons (noise, ammo size / weight, muzzle flash, etc), but my concerns about its potential effectiveness against man should the need arise. I have since learned that with a little more effort than a more powerful gun (head shots only, pretty much), it can do the job. Another point. Would you say that me hitting someone in the head with a .22lr would be murder, but hitting someone in the chest with a 12g, 3" buckshot load would be "self defense?" Obviously anyone who chooses a 12g for SD, and then chooses the most powerful defensive loadings for it, is definately expect to do some serious damage (and thus probably kill) to whoever he might shoot at. Or, hell, does aiming for center mass carry the same connotation that the shooter wants to murder his target? Should we all only aim at the feet as to only "dissuade" the attacker without risking killig him? But then again... that could be considered intentionally attempting to maim the victim, still making the shooter a "bad person?"

Personally, I live in the PRK. No castle doctrine here but killing someone in your house during SD isn't likely to get you into trouble. I've seen a few cases here over the last couple of years to that effect. With that said, I have two Daughters (10 and 14) that stay at home during the day on summer vacation. They have quick access to a sidearm and are trained to use it. I taught them that if someone gets in the house while they are there, to shoot them, and to keep shooting them until they stop moving (up to 5 rds, save two in case of a second intruder) then call 911. They are not to reload unless the intruder starts to get up. (not likely after 5rds of .380 JHP at 15ft by a trained shooter). The legalities of this are grey, however I'd rather take the consequences than have them raped and killed or killed then raped (It's happened). I just cover them with prayer every day that this never happens. After all.... to quote an old phrase:

Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[JMcDonald]

Quote:       Originally Posted by TexasT

I read this and didn't bother reading any further. You live in the boonies, dude. Ain't no zombie terrorists coming after you! You have no concept as to what a real SHTF event actually is. Your SHTF is largely fantasy. Somebody been watching too many movies?

I don't really live in the boonies. I live in an apartment in a city of 100k, which is the suburb of a city of around 400k, which holds Tinker AFB. Or is that what you mean?

And you're right. I don't think any of us has lived in a world where several major U.S. cities were nuked. I don't think any one of us has had to live in an America where a virus or bacteria killed off a huge chunk of its population. I don't think any one of us has had to live through our current, modern society breaking down to the point of mass riots, panic, and looting (though New Orleans had a sample). I don't think any one of us has lived through an EMP attack. I don't think any one of us has had to fight a government trying to disarm and thus figuratively enslave its people. I don't think any of us has had to live in a world where bands of gangs and raiders, too numbers and individually too powerful for police and military to control, run rampant doing whatever they please. I don't think any of us has lived through war-time attacks on U.S. by other powerful countries like North Korea, Russia, Brazil, China, or India.

But if you tried to tell any one of us these things were not possible, most of us would laugh in your face.

[sbowers5]

Texas T you are so right is your assement of this thread originator and the content of his post I am in full agreement with you, fantansy land for sure.
Steve

[big shrek]

Quote:       Originally Posted by TexasT

I read this and didn't bother reading any further. You live in the boonies, dude. Ain't no zombie terrorists coming after you! You have no concept as to what a real SHTF event actually is. Your SHTF is largely fantasy. Somebody been watching too many movies?

Someone piss in yer wheaties??

Here's a SHTF for ya!!

An old fart with a .22 manages to kill one guard, but three guards with .38's & 9mm's can't manage to kill him?? The guards SERIOUSLY need to get some range time in...OH WAIT, THEY CAN'T!! It's DC!! They just RECENTLY became able to take their weapons home!! TALK ABOUT SCREWING THE POOCH!!! If they'd have let security personnel practice with their own licensed weapons, they MIGHT have gotten him FIRST. TAKE THAT, LIBERALS!!!