Concealed Carry in the Era of Terror

[Amp Mangum]

Good read:

http://www.fpftraining.com/concealed...rror-part-one/


http://www.fpftraining.com/concealed...rror-part-two/

[SOW_0331]

Hahahaha. "Anchor shot so you aren't worried about the guy behind you". This is no more an Era of Terrah than it was 20 years ago, and as a daily carrier I know where the line is. This is silly at best, dangerous in reality.

[sevenhelmet]

No. Just no. Who is this guy?

[26 Inf]

So, with that in mind, back shoot them without hesitation. The cheaper the shot, the better. As you pass their bodies, “anchor” shoot them, preferably through the brain and from a position of advantage, to ensure there’s not a threat behind you as you move on. While these methods of engagement are illegal and inappropriate for a criminal encounter and would likely see you charged with murder in that context, I suspect a citizen acting this way against a terrorist threat will be given a pass. (Differentiating between the two at that time could be difficult. Choose wisely…)

TACTICS - YOURS

Once away, you can escape, lay in fixed ambush or move through the structure and engage at the times and places of your choosing in a roving sort of ambush/meeting engagement. The latter is a very high risk undertaking but will serve to buy time for other citizens to escape. You will likely be significantly outgunned.

Who is this Walter Mitty MF'er?

[Mr blasty]

I do find it interesting how people in the advanced western world seem shocked and horrified about terrorism when not that long ago (70's-90's) it was all around Europe and America. Groups were much more ballsy and would basically commit all out war with full auto's right in the streets. The IRA, ULA, ILA, ALF, Khmer Rouge, Red Army Faction, Baader Meinhof etc.... People have short memories.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

[WillBrink]

I do find it interesting how people in the advanced western world seem shocked and horrified about terrorism when not that long ago (70's-90's) it was all around Europe and America. Groups were much more ballsy and would basically commit all out war with full auto's right in the streets. The IRA, ULA, ILA, ALF, Khmer Rouge, Red Army Faction, Baader Meinhof etc.... People have short memories.

Indeed they do. The age of the internet and total abandonment of intellectual honesty and integrity by the media and other factors has people losing all sense of reality and context. If you asked most people, they'd tell you it's a very violent time, when in fact it's one of the most peaceful periods in human history.

[Mr blasty]

Indeed they do. The age of the internet and total abandonment of intellectual honesty and integrity by the media and other factors has people losing all sense of reality and context. If you asked most people, they'd tell you it's a very violent time, when in fact it's one of the most peaceful periods in human history.

Year of the shark all over again. The media will always invent a new shark.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

[Amp Mangum]

So, with that in mind, back shoot them without hesitation. The cheaper the shot, the better. As you pass their bodies, “anchor” shoot them, preferably through the brain and from a position of advantage, to ensure there’s not a threat behind you as you move on. While these methods of engagement are illegal and inappropriate for a criminal encounter and would likely see you charged with murder in that context, I suspect a citizen acting this way against a terrorist threat will be given a pass. (Differentiating between the two at that time could be difficult. Choose wisely…)

I don't think the courts would "give you a pass" even if it was a terrorist event.

[MegademiC]

Really? I would take the opposite approach. If a guy with an ak is killing people at your local mall, I'm pretty sure shooting him in the back of the head is legal. But maybe I missed something. I think finishing off a threat while moving to another is also legal when in self defense or the defense of others.

[tomrkba]

So, with that in mind, back shoot them without hesitation. The cheaper the shot, the better. As you pass their bodies, “anchor” shoot them, preferably through the brain and from a position of advantage, to ensure there’s not a threat behind you as you move on. While these methods of engagement are illegal and inappropriate for a criminal encounter and would likely see you charged with murder in that context, I suspect a citizen acting this way against a terrorist threat will be given a pass. (Differentiating between the two at that time could be difficult. Choose wisely…)

I don't think the courts would "give you a pass" even if it was a terrorist event.

I do not know what would happen in court. I think the court would acknowledge that an event like this is different than a criminal encounter. My attitude is this is an act of war and the situation is one of that war's battles. At that point, any combatants on the "victim" side are acting in a militia capacity in a time of war. I do not know if this would stand, but it's just something that occurs to me.