Legally, how do you deal with something like this?

[Mou Meng Gung Fu]

Until you encounter someone shooting real bullets.

I don't think that's necessarily true. A man waving a real gun with real bullets around can just as easily be taken down and disarmed using less-lethal rounds. We're not exactly talking about shooting nerf-gun bullets. We're just lessening the chances of causing fatal injury. Less-lethal rounds are still very real.

 

[CB Jones]

I don't think that's necessarily true. A man waving a real gun with real bullets around can just as easily be taken down and disarmed using less-lethal rounds. We're not exactly talking about shooting nerf-gun bullets. We're just lessening the chances of causing fatal injury. Less-lethal rounds are still very real.

No...no...no That is a horrible idea.

1st....police use non-lethal rounds because we know we have at least 2 or 3 guns aimed at the suspect with live ammo as a back-up. A citizen does not have this luxury.

Less-lethal rounds aren't going to stop someone who has intent on shooting and killing you. They work good in riot control or stand off situations because the violator is not actively engaging in a shootout.

Look at the case of Jared Reston.....the bad guy had every intent of killing Reston and walked through something like 6 or 7 live rounds while firing at Reston. It took a head shot to finally stop him. Had Reston been armed with rubber bullets he would have been killed.

Carrying rubber bullets in your only firearm is one of the dumbest ideas I have heard. It makes no sense. If you are using your firearm then your life is in endangered and you are going to chance being killed using rubber bullets???????

 

[Mou Meng Gung Fu]

No...no...no That is a horrible idea.

1st....police use non-lethal rounds because we know we have at least 2 or 3 guns aimed at the suspect with live ammo as a back-up. A citizen does not have this luxury.

Less-lethal rounds aren't going to stop someone who has intent on shooting and killing you. They work good in riot control or stand off situations because the violator is not actively engaging in a shootout.

Look at the case of Jared Reston.....the bad guy had every intent of killing Reston and walked through something like 6 or 7 live rounds while firing at Reston. It took a head shot to finally stop him. Had Reston been armed with rubber bullets he would have been killed.

Carrying rubber bullets in your only firearm is one of the dumbest ideas I have heard. It makes no sense. If you are using your firearm then your life is in endangered and you are going to chance being killed using rubber bullets???????

I'm assuming the man who assaulted Mister Reston was on some hardcore drugs (or adrenaline pumped). I already said earlier what I would recommend for civilians armed with lethal rounds. The thing with police is that they are trained to aim for either the suspect's body, or target less-lethal areas. But with a less-lethal round, I would aim for the suspect's head in a self-defense situation, or else I would aim for his trigger-hand, and that's just my first shot. I plan on emptying the whole clip on him as I approach him to kick his gun away. I already said what I would do if there were multiple assailants with guns. It's usually not too difficult to tell when someone's on drugs. But as long as you can shoot first with accuracy, with the intent of disabling and disarming a madman, then you should be okay with less-lethal rounds even if they're on drugs. As you said, it took a headshot to finally stop Mister Reston's attacker. I wonder if he thought to himself afterwards, "Hmmm maybe I should've started with that." Cuz I would.

 

[CB Jones]

I'm assuming the man who assaulted Mister Reston was on some hardcore drugs. I already said earlier what I would recommend for civilians armed with lethal rounds. The thing with police is that they are trained to aim for either the suspect's body, or target less-lethal areas. But with a less-lethal round, I would aim for the suspect's head in a self-defense situation, or else I would aim for his trigger-hand, and that's just my first shot. I plan on emptying the whole clip on him as I approach him to kick his gun away. I already said what I would do if there were multiple assailants with guns. It's usually not too difficult to tell when someone's on drugs. But as long as you can shoot first with accuracy, with the intent of disabling and disarming a madman, then you should be okay with less-lethal rounds even if they're on drugs. As you said, it took a headshot to finally stop Mister Reston's attacker. I wonder if he thought to himself afterwards, "Hmmm maybe I should've started with that." Cuz I would.

Oh wow.....bless your heart. There is no hope for you.

Hopefully, no one takes your advice on this.

 

[Mou Meng Gung Fu]

Oh wow.....bless your heart. There is no hope for you.

Hopefully, no one takes your advice on this.

I don't understand your reasoning behind this statement. I just Googled the Reston case to get a better understanding. I saw several flaws with Mister Reston's approach, but there's no sense comparing apples to oranges in this case. Police officers will chase their assailants. Most civilians will not. Police officers are trained primarily to aim for non-lethal target areas or the body. Most civilians are shooting to kill, so they're targeting the head primarily, or the heart. If you shoot someone in the face with a less-lethal round, you could still kill them. It's not non-lethal, it's less-lethal. But whatever you say. It's a dumb idea, I guess. I'd still try it. Headshots first.

 

[CB Jones]

I don't understand your reasoning behind this statement. I just Googled the Reston case to get a better understanding. I saw several flaws with Mister Reston's approach, but there's no sense comparing apples to oranges in this case. Police officers will chase their assailants. Most civilians will not. Police officers are trained primarily to aim for non-lethal target areas or the body. Most civilians are shooting to kill, so they're targeting the head primarily, or the heart. If you shoot someone in the face with a less-lethal round, you could still kill them. It's not non-lethal, it's less-lethal. But whatever you say. It's a dumb idea, I guess. I'd still try it.

The reason I mentioned the Reston case is to show how someone with full intent to kill you is not gonna be stopped by rubber bullets. He was walking through live rounds while firing back.

And police are not trained to aim at non-lethal target areas....that is absurd. We are trained to aim at center of chest and/or head.

If you go up against someone armed with a gun and you are using rubber bullets....chances are you will be killed.

 

[Buka]

Rubber bullets are used for training, not for real world anything.
There is no such thing as a warning show.
You can't aim for feet, or for hands. Honest, bro.

 

[elder999]

Ya did ok, @Buka , except for this:

Rubber bullets are used for training, not for real world anything.
.

Rubber bullet - Wikipedia

Police fire rubber bullets as pipeline protesters try to protect sacred site

Palestinians got killed by rubber bullets to the head almost yearly, it seemed for a while..

 

[Buka]

Ya did ok, @Buka , except for this:



Rubber bullet - Wikipedia

Police fire rubber bullets as pipeline protesters try to protect sacred site

Palestinians got killed by rubber bullets to the head almost yearly, it seemed for a while..

You're correct, of course, I should have specified. They have only been used for training in my world. (thankfully) But, man, do those suckers hurt.

 

[Mou Meng Gung Fu]

Well, all things being said, I think all of us could agree that headshots count, regardless of whatever rounds you use. I think we can also all agree that any time there's guns involved, there is a chance you could die. So to each his own I guess. All of us had valid points, I think. That's why I didn't quote anyone in particular. It's all good. But going back to the OP, it makes me wonder why 50 teens started rioting on a train to begin with. Me personally, I can't stand children and wanna'be thugs. I would've never been on that train to begin with.

I think this goes back to self-defense training. When the ZombiCon shootouts happened, I was supposed to be there with my family. But being smart, I decided not to go because there was millions of people. My gut instinct in today's world is to stay away from big public crowds. Had I not learned from 9/11 and the Boston bombings, I'd probably be dead right now. Avoidance is the best policy (in my opinion).

 

[CB Jones]

think all of us could agree that headshots count,

Count for what? It ain't a video game, you don't get points

any time there's guns involved, there is a chance you could die.

But when you bring a gun with rubber bullets to a fight against someone with real bullets...you increase your chance exponentially of being the one killed.

 

[Mou Meng Gung Fu]

Count for what? It ain't a video game, you don't get points



But when you bring a gun with rubber bullets to a fight against someone with real bullets...you increase your chance exponentially of being the one killed.

I didn't mean it counts as in points like a video game. I mean it counts as in realistic odds and numbers (i.e. 1 shot to the head > 7 shots to the body). You increase the odds of ending the conflict faster with headshots. Amazingly, this works in video games too.

And I'd say against 50 teenagers with weapons on a train, it doesn't really matter what rounds you carry. It's going to require more than a clip or two anyway. I wouldn't recommend using anything but your brain, if you didn't have to. At least that's my point of view. By yourself in this scenerio, it wouldn't really matter anyway. You're out-gunned 50 to 1, so even with lethal bullets, you increase your chances of being the one killed. Would you agree?

 

[CB Jones]

You increase the odds of ending the conflict faster with headshots.

But then decrease them by using rubber bullets

You're out-gunned 50 to 1, so even with lethal bullets, you increase your chances of being the one killed. Would you agree?

Your chances are always higher with lethal rounds because you have more options and more firepower.

The thing you are failing to realize is when you leave the house you don't know if you are going to face punk purse snatchers that day or a crazed Aloha Snackbar gunman. By arming yourself with rubber bullets you have set yourself up for failure.

You have handicapped yourself for no apparent reason.

 

[Mou Meng Gung Fu]

But then decrease them by using rubber bullets



Your chances are always higher with lethal rounds because you have more options and more firepower.

The thing you are failing to realize is when you leave the house you don't know if you are going to face punk purse snatchers that day or a crazed Aloha Snackbar gunman. By arming yourself with rubber bullets you have set yourself up for failure.

You have handicapped yourself for no apparent reason.

Then use lethal rounds.

 

[Mou Meng Gung Fu]

Rubber bullets are used for training, not for real world anything.
There is no such thing as a warning show.
You can't aim for feet, or for hands. Honest, bro.

But in all truth, you can aim for the hands and feet. Are they smaller targets? Yes it is harder. Are they moving targets? Only if they're in motion. If they're standing still and pointing a gun then no, they are not moving (And again I only suggest using lethal rounds to target the hands and feet- I suggest headshots with rubber bullets). Rubber bullets are not only used for training purposes, actually. They are used for situations specifically like the one mentioned in the OP's original post. They are also used for riot control in some regions. Obviously the military doesn't use them, but police officers in the real world most certainly do (Honest, bro- I'm not lying).

I'd also like to see someone continue to fight after being shot in the face with a less-lethal round. They're going to be knocked unconscious at the very least, but there's still a good chance it might kill them too. CB JONES's opinion that lethal rounds are better is in fact just that, an opinion. It's not necessarily true. Just like your opinion that you can't aim for hands and feet. That's not true either. DELTA and SAS snipers are trained to aim for lethal killzone target areas on the body. But they are also trained to target less vital areas in case there's a bomb threat or hostage situation. In a world of terrorism and technology, it may be necessary to preserve the life of a man with explosives strapped to his own body. Interrogation is part of the job. He's not afraid of being hit with lethal bullets. He's a suicide bomber with valuable information who's already willing to die. There must be another way. You can't just go around killing bad guys anymore. It's important to think about these things in our everyday life.

 

[Buka]

But in all truth, you can aim for the hands and feet. Are they smaller targets? Yes it is harder. Are they moving targets? Only if they're in motion. If they're standing still and pointing a gun then no, they are not moving (And again I only suggest using lethal rounds to target the hands and feet- I suggest headshots with rubber bullets). Rubber bullets are not only used for training purposes, actually. They are used for situations specifically like the one mentioned in the OP's original post. They are also used for riot control in some regions. Obviously the military doesn't use them, but police officers in the real world most certainly do (Honest, bro- I'm not lying).

I'd also like to see someone continue to fight after being shot in the face with a less-lethal round. They're going to be knocked unconscious at the very least, but there's still a good chance it might kill them too. CB JONES's opinion that lethal rounds are better is in fact just that, an opinion. It's not necessarily true. Just like your opinion that you can't aim for hands and feet. That's not true either. DELTA and SAS snipers are trained to aim for lethal killzone target areas on the body. But they are also trained to target less vital areas in case there's a bomb threat or hostage situation. In a world of terrorism and technology, it may be necessary to preserve the life of a man with explosives strapped to his own body. Interrogation is part of the job. He's not afraid of being hit with lethal bullets. He's a suicide bomber with valuable information who's already willing to die. There must be another way. You can't just go around killing bad guys anymore. It's important to think about these things in our everyday life.

You can't compare a sniper to an officer with a side arm. Seriously. It's not apples and oranges, it's apples and orangutans.

And to your point, you can aim for the hands and the feet. That would be you, not anyone that works, has worked, or will work in an occupation where a side arm might have to be drawn and fired to defend life.

And it isn't really opinion, it's training procedure. Kind of everywhere in the world.

 

[CB Jones]

But in all truth, you can aim for the hands and feet. Are they smaller targets? Yes it is harder. Are they moving targets? Only if they're in motion. If they're standing still and pointing a gun then no, they are not moving (And again I only suggest using lethal rounds to target the hands and feet- I suggest headshots with rubber bullets). Rubber bullets are not only used for training purposes, actually. They are used for situations specifically like the one mentioned in the OP's original post. They are also used for riot control in some regions. Obviously the military doesn't use them, but police officers in the real world most certainly do (Honest, bro- I'm not lying).

I'd also like to see someone continue to fight after being shot in the face with a less-lethal round. They're going to be knocked unconscious at the very least, but there's still a good chance it might kill them too. CB JONES's opinion that lethal rounds are better is in fact just that, an opinion. It's not necessarily true. Just like your opinion that you can't aim for hands and feet. That's not true either. DELTA and SAS snipers are trained to aim for lethal killzone target areas on the body. But they are also trained to target less vital areas in case there's a bomb threat or hostage situation. In a world of terrorism and technology, it may be necessary to preserve the life of a man with explosives strapped to his own body. Interrogation is part of the job. He's not afraid of being hit with lethal bullets. He's a suicide bomber with valuable information who's already willing to die. There must be another way. You can't just go around killing bad guys anymore. It's important to think about these things in our everyday life.

You know I didn't beat on you over the Chop Suey Nameless B.S. that you claim you teach....but the more I read of your posts.....you are going to get someone hurt. Someone is gonna actually think you know what you are talking about and believe your B.S. You live in fantasy land and I hope with all hope that you really aren't teaching anyone B.S. like this.

 

[hoshin1600]

--------------------------------------------

i was going to quote you on some things and make comments but then the list of bad advise and nonsense just got to long.
i wouldnt even know where to start.. please for the sake of everyone around you, if your "hint" means you carry firearm without a permit ....please dont. just dont.

 

[Mou Meng Gung Fu]

Maybe you're ALL right this time, I don't know. I will be 100% honest, I don't really train with weapons (I made this same statement in another thread). Mou Meng Gung Fu is not a weapon system, nor do I teach weapons as part of our training. So if anyone's worried about me teaching firearms, I'm not even legally permitted to carry a firearm, so don't worry. I was just giving my opinion and two-cents. Hey, maybe you're right. But I have a big heart, so I was just trying to be less lethal is all. Nothing more. Nothing less. Mou Meng Gung Fu employs knife-disarms and gun-disarms as part of the training, but other than during the 2-man disarming drills we don't even use weapons. All of the knives we use are made of real steel blades, but we grinded them down so the edges and points are dull. All of the guns we use are actual heavy guns, but they aren't loaded. There is no risk of getting seriously injured in my program. We are actually very strict when it comes to safety and the preservation of life (yet another reason I advocate less lethal bullets as a means to an end- I mean, someone invented them so that we could use them right?). But I'm not so ignorant as to not see the validation of the argument against rubber bullets. So I will just digress again, for now. I still don't see how a gun is going to help you much with the OP's train hijacking scenerio. What is a single person with a glock going to do against 50 crazy teenagers? How many can you shoot before they overwhelm you like a horde of zombies? Let's keep the other case in mind too. It took 7 shots to the body and then a few more shots to the head for an officer to kill one person (and this happens a lot with drug related incidents involving super narcotics). Now imagine 50 people, on a moving train. What's the plan now you guys? Any suggestions? Or are we still arguing about real bullets vs rubber bullets? Cuz it's pointless, like I said.

 

[CB Jones]

All of the guns we use are actual heavy guns, but they aren't loaded. There is no risk of getting seriously injured in my program.

Do yourself a favor and buy you a couple red or blue guns....they have the same feel as real guns. Also, legally if you aren't allowed to have one you don't have to worry about caught handling a real gun.

If you aren't going to use a red/blue gun......have everyone check and re-check that the guns are unloaded and thread a ribbon through the barrel and ejection port. The ribbon signifies the gun is unloaded and safe during training. No ribbon hanging out the barrel and ejection port is a good indicator the gun has not been made safe. Everyone should know if they don't see a ribbon to immediately stop training and secure the weapon.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

What is a single person with a glock going to do against 50 crazy teenagers?

The Glock can protect you from a couple of them jumping and attacking you. You can't take on the whole 50 but you could stop an attack against you. Sure, you can't stop all 50.....but chances are a few of them don't want to sacrifice themselves for the group .


Me on the other hand.....I carry a Glock 17, Glock 43, S&W body guard, 2 extra magazines and a machete everywhere I go....so as Rooster Cogburn said.........Fill your hands, you Son-sa-biches.