SD equipment on the job

Good discussion.

Point of issue -

It is irrelevant whether a Forum Folk agrees with the moderator (me, in this case) or doesn't. I'm just the moderator. My positions, opinions, and observations are only that. When presented I attempt to offer some sense of foundation or basis for whatever it is I may say. Otherwise, I might just offer "this is how I feel about it" and leave it at that.

What we're posting is discussion in response to a question. Our discussion may or may not help the original posting party come to a better decision. It should at least challenge and educate him or her.

So keep it coming.:cool:
 
Words are important. They convey ideas. I'm sad about what has transpired in this thread.
 
I totally see where Don is at with this.

If you had a any job in a high-risk environment, not necissarily guarding goldbricks but say some job likely to bring you into contact with the lowest human elements, bad neighborhoods,etc., and it was verboten to carry a weapon - the idea being presented here is that the person should "take their medicine" for the sake of going by the book, instead of surviving.

Not an idea I agree with.

If you live in a neighborhood where you are likely to reqire a weapon and weapons are illegal - who in their right mind would go without a weapon in order to "stay legal"???

A choice between breaking the law and surviving is no choice.

YES I would say carry an illegal weapon if you are likely to need it. Thats why God made stormdrains.
 
Why would one take a job like that if the risks are so great and legally they are not able to carry items to adequately protect themselves? Everyone makes decisions about what is best for them, you are right. However, most discount the idea that the best thing for them might be to find a different job. Don't get me wrong, everyone has to go to less than ideal places and deal with them sometimes. But to take a job that puts you there day after day when you cannot legally feel comfortable in the level of protection you have, why? Its not worth it to me. If someone decides it is worth it they get no sympathy from me for breaking the law. Because when that guy gets caught the public doesn't know that he is really a good guy. In todays society everyone is a victim, why should this guy be any different. The public is just going to see him as a criminal that is making excuses. Problem is that just does not affect the individual. It affects all responsible weapons owners working and seeking legal carry options.
 
Originally posted by one2gofst
Why would one take a job like that if the risks are so great and legally they are not able to carry items to adequately protect themselves? Everyone makes decisions about what is best for them, you are right. However, most discount the idea that the best thing for them might be to find a different job. Don't get me wrong, everyone has to go to less than ideal places and deal with them sometimes. But to take a job that puts you there day after day when you cannot legally feel comfortable in the level of protection you have, why? Its not worth it to me. If someone decides it is worth it they get no sympathy from me for breaking the law. Because when that guy gets caught the public doesn't know that he is really a good guy. In todays society everyone is a victim, why should this guy be any different. The public is just going to see him as a criminal that is making excuses. Problem is that just does not affect the individual. It affects all responsible weapons owners working and seeking legal carry options.
Click to expand...

So hypothetically, if owning a weapon was outlawed, you would give up your weapons?

Responseable weapons owners carry weapons where/when they are likely to be needed, and uses them if their survival, or the survival of others depends on it - regardless of what some third party dictates from the security their legislative ivory tower.

Written laws exist to subserve "justice" not vise-versa - unfortunately collective amnesia obscures this idea from time to time.
 
You did not answer the question.

As far as weapons being illegal it will never happen. Not only can you not regulate someone training and using their own body, but you cannot regulate everyday items. If you want to you can carry everyday items and protect yourself in most any situation. Look at history books. Okinawa, where the Sai, Tonfa, Bo and other martial arts "weapons" originated. These are not weapons. Sais were made for tilling earth. Tonfas were for pounding rice, Bo is a simple staff. Why did they use these tools (and with good results)? Because those in control decided to "disarm" the population of farmers who lived there.
 
I've seen plastic devices being suggested as self-protection alternatives for those who believe there's nothing more important than following the laws, no matter how unreasonable they may be.
Well, guess what? Those "socially acceptable" tools are being outlawed as well! In California, they're ammending state legislation to include plastic impact weapons; in Australia (or at least parts of the country), it's already illegal to carry a Kubotan!
The political forces behind those laws are not after "ugly-looking" guns and knives only; they're opposed to the very idea of self-defense. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not about to give up the natural right to protect myself and my loved ones. I know there's a risk that comes with that decision, but so be it.
 
Are you refering to this question?:
Originally posted by one2gofst
Why would one take a job like that if the risks are so great and legally they are not able to carry items to adequately protect themselves?
Click to expand...
There are so many possible exceptions to this blanket question. Say, for instance, you have a job, UPS courier for instance, that may require to to venture into ****** neighborhoods say 25% of the time - its a good job, benifits, etc. But that 25% of the time you are in an area where being ambushed and robbed is a very real possibility. You are supposed to forgo your good job for that?

Another example: I have a good friend who works motel security here in Daytona - most of the time its a no brainer - but we occasionally have events here like "Spring Break" or worse yet, "Black College Reunion (BCR)" - where he is one of the ONLY white security personel in a motel filled with out-of-control, often racist, and occasionally violent college students - something bad happens every BCR - this year the rumor is there will be no auxillary assitance from out of town police departments, meaning the DBPD will be GROSSLY understaffed - a bad situation all around.

He is supposed to give up his otherwise good job, in a place where good jobs are hard to find, over an insane event that only lasts about 3 days out of the year?

Life is not as cut and dried as your question implies.

No insult intended - we are not on the same page regarding this issue.
 
We obviously have differing opinions, but no worries, no offense taken. A couple of things about the situations you mentioned. UPS is in most every city if not every city in the U.S. it is indeed a good job for many people. However, as I understand, it is fairly easy to be transferred from one city to another if you need to. If one is not working in a city where CCW are legal then why not transfer to one where it is if it is that necessary. That may seem extreme. We are talking about someone's life here. Going to jail for a good long time is not a better option than changing cities IMO.

As for your friend who works security in Daytona. I was under the impression that florida has fairly conservative gun and knife laws including CCW permits. I could be wrong, but again this is the imprssion I was under. If this is the case if he does not carry it is not for legal reasons. Therefore it does not properly illustrate the point I believe you are trying to make. As for a hypothetical security guard in a local which does not allow legal CCW. I am fairly sure there are security jobs to be had in places which allow CCW or even open carry (hell they'll let anyone do it, just look at VG!;) ).

So I stand by my original statement. I also still believe that in the vast majority of situations there are perfectly legal options for defending oneself. I believe the example of Okinawa to be a fairly good one. It might require creativity and extra effort, but it is worth it. If one is not willing to be creative in his approach to SD utensils how can they expect to be creative enough to survive an actual encounter with a BG? It all comes down to weighing risks against rewards. If I was getting paid a million a year it would probably be worth the risk to carry. For $50k it probably would not. When you get caught in that situation you will not even be able to afford your own legal fees, much less take care of your families. You can also forget about a good job like that when you get out. I don't think UPS likes to hire violent folons to drive their trucks. Good luck finding a job in security with a felony conviction. You will pick up a good trade if you survive prison though. Maybe you can become a real criminal rather than just a good guy in a bad situation.

I'm sorry. my post seems to have gotten a little sarcastica and possibly inflamatory towards the end. It was not my initial intent. I do think the point is still valid though, so i shall leave it as is. I am enjoying this thread very much and look forward to your response.
 
Whether the illustrations of my points are good or bad hardly matters - since you are doing backflips to either miss the point or attempt to invalidate a valid point by picking apart random illustrations of the point - that is an endless game, which is ok if you like to type and argue for the sake of arguement - I don't like to do either. Anyone who gets my point already gets it - thats all that matters.

If you want to go unarmed when/if it's illegal to carry a gun - thats ok, its your choice, or if you want to continually "move" to a better neighborhood when yours starts to go bad, thats ok too. (yes I know you did not explicitly SAY either of these things, but to me they are implicit in the point of view you have taken)

These are your choices and you have a right to them - but they are not the only choices.
 
I also still believe that in the vast majority of situations there are perfectly legal options for defending oneself.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Especially, if you live in one the more liberal, pansy states like NJ, MA, CA, DC, etc. In these states it's illegal to carry a gun unless you have very strong political connections. These states also have restrictive laws on the knives that you can carry.

I used to live in NJ where it's next to impossible to carry a concealed firearm legally. I was able to move to GA where the gun laws are much more lax, the weather's warmer and the women are prettier because my career enabled me to do so. Everyone is not fortunate enough to make a move like I did. Even if they can move they don't want to because they want to stay close to family and friends.

Be discreet and carry what you want. Thankfully, I live in a state in which I can do so. If I had to move back to NJ, I'd still carry because I will not be a victim.
 
Perhaps we're drifting a bit here...

Somehow we've gone from the original posting's question to gun ownership / carry and job choices.

That would make an interesting alternative thread.

For a time I worked for Vance International doing high risk corporate security in W. Virginia and Kentucky. Anyone with any experience with the United Mine Workers Union in these areas knows they are a tough buncha lads...and well armed...and unafraid to use their weapons during a strike.

VI had some very serious and restrictive weapons policies (company owned and issued as opposed to private carry). Some contract folk chose to ignore the policy, some didn't. The majority of the operators I worked with as a site supervisor or assistant supervisor who had their stuff in one bag didn't break the rules, and knew why the rules were there and important. They also knew how to survive and function in the environment based on exceptional training and experience before having gone to work for VI. The toughest, most capable, and known player in the band who I worked for made it very clear to those on his team.

Pack an unauthorized weapon and pack your bags. He wanted men with brains and hard skills. If we needed a firearm, we'd have one issued. Our team worked the toughest strike areas, with the most violence, and always took care of business via excellent discipline and training...+ smart people.

In another time and place, when ONLY a handgun was authorized for U.S. combat advisors to carry, the smart advisors had their Salvadoran body guard carry TWO assault rifles at all times. Figure it out...

:D

Self Defense is making quality decisions and being creative. If you can't do either then doing the easy wrong over the hard right is probably all you're left with as an option.
 
Originally posted by Sierra912
Perhaps we're drifting a bit here...

Somehow we've gone from the original posting's question to gun ownership / carry and job choices.
Click to expand...

This an the example of VI that followed is interesting in that at least you were issued weapons. :)

For a time I worked for Vance International doing high risk corporate security in W. Virginia and Kentucky. Anyone with any experience with the United Mine Workers Union in these areas knows they are a tough buncha lads...and well armed...and unafraid to use their weapons during a strike.
Click to expand...

That was an interesting article you wrote way back then in SOF about this. Alot of people don't really know how incredibly violent that portion of the country really is. Ever read The Coalfield Progress? Been a long time since I did.

I watched a fellow in the parking lot of a bar in Wise County, Virginia catch a rattlesnake with his bare hands. Stupid? Maybe so, but not many people would want to screw with that person...he was a Logger though... :D

Anyways...

Alot of your points have little to do with a guy in a suit who needs to pack a handgun, knife or whatever is verboten in certain places because he feels the need to, employment being dangerous, area being dangerous, passing through dangerous areas...no matter.

Or the aforementioned Pizza Delivery fellow who got snagged up by Domino's liberal policy.

The Domino's guy did not sign on to be Strike Force Security with VI and could be issued a weapon when needed, etc.
 
I am really not arguing for the sake of arguement. All I have to go by are the illustrations and words you provide. By those you did provide it does not seem worth the risk of carrying a The fact is that I can see very few situations where it is worthwhile to carry a firearm if it is illegal. It also happens that the illustrations you used seem to clearly illustrate that it is not worth it IMO. I agree that they are only choices. But we are entitled to make our own choices. We are also entitled to speak about these choices in an intelligent dialogue, not to change anothers beliefs neccesarily, but to provide a balanced dialogue on the subject for individuals to make their own decision. I know I am in the minority on this issue. That does not bother me. It does bother me slightly that some people do not want to even hear opposing views although the pairity may help others reach conclusions. So, the bottom line is that I feel my points are valid. All I have to discuss with you are the things you write. It is not my fault if they do not properly illustrate what you are really trying to say. Do I like a good discussion? You bet. Am I trying to insult you or argue for the sake of arguement? Nope.
 
Actually the article was published in Gung-Ho magazine:p

And yes, Vance issued weapons for specific sites and jobs. For example, we did not have this option available when I worked a copper mine strike in AZ. Again, quality decisions based upon legal and common sense approaches to getting the job done safely and in the best interest(s) of the client and those doing the job.

However, if you violated the personal weapon ban and were caught...say bye-bye to your rather well paying job as well as hello to the local authorities if you were snagged outside the job site and a forgiving supervisor.

As for the "suit" who has to go in harm's way and just can't figure out how to do so without packing heat legally...

Again, learn quality self defense tactics, techniques, strategies, and practice these as well as sound environmental awareness tactics. Doing so takes the reliance off of "I have to have a gun!" when - if you're traveling outside the country like to Mexico or Canada or elsewhere overseas where packing a firearm is simply a non-issue - you can continue to provide yourself with adequate protection regardless of where it is you're at.

And again, if you can't figure out how to research those states that don't provide for concealed carry but do allow for other forms of keeping a firearm nearby...

And I find it interesting that the argument appears to be if the law allows one to get a CCW (a privilege, not a right) then the law is followed to obtain the permit. However, if the law elsewhere offers you can't carry despite perhaps having legal right to do so elsewhere, the person in question is somehow justified in breaking THAT law while having followed the other to get the permit in the first place.

Sorry. Quality self protection and defense means being smarter, not emotional. It means being capable, not culpable. It means learning the rules of the game so you can play it and win.

The seniormost U.S. military advisor, a Navy SEAL officer, assassinated in El Salvador in the mid-1980s carried a cocked and locked .46 Colt at all times. He got hit in the open, in broad daylight, downtown, by a two-man hit team with spotters. Never had a chance to get to his weapon. Lots of reasons but the primary one was failing to practice good counter-surveillance procedures and becoming lax due to perhaps feeling overconfident due to his training and presence of the weapon.

I've slipped through many a bad situation by seeing it happening before it happened, or using other, smarter tactics and techniques to resolve it before bad things could happen. When I have had to fight I've done so and won...and won without question and without hassle.

And that's what I encourage my students and others to do as well.
 
Greg,

I still believe that self-protection is a basic individual right, which rules out the idea that owning and carrying a firearm is a privilege granted by laws, as you have stated previously. Guess we will have to agree to disagree here.

That being said, I agree that one should never rely on one single tool or strategy. Personally, I do believe in awareness, avoidance, alternative weapons and unarmed techniques etc.

Leo
 
I can't concede any support to the idea that firearms only belong in the hands of the priviledged few (police, military, and the more strident CCW requirements) - the rest have to learn "self-defense."

It's a charged issue with little middle-ground that I can see - the "gun grabbers" (however cryptic or nebulous) and anyone shifting ideas in their favor are in defacto collusion with the predatory criminals, however unwittingly.

Here is another story to nitpick: my cousin lives in a small town in michigan - he had to pick up his mother (my aunt) and our grandmother from the airport in Detroit - to do so you have to get into and out of some doubful areas in Detroit. He packed his 1911, I don't know if he did so legally at the time, but lets say it was illegally for the sake of arguement. The flight arrived circa 2am. They were driving back on a deserted highway - there they were "followed" by a car with 4 highly suspicious young men in it - the car would drive up alongside them, as if to look at the occupants, then drop back behind them - they played cat & mouse that way for awhile until the young men decided better of whatever they had in mind and took an exit. All this time my cousin had his pistol within reach.

Now of course any number of things could have happened in this instance besides the worst case scenario - but if push came to shove, my cousin, who I know like a brother - would have done the right thing - and god willing there would have been four weeping mothers of scumbags in Detroit the next day instead of me mourning the loss of my aunt, cousin, and grandmother.

There is no way anyone can convince me that would have not been the "right" thing, even if it had been "illegal."

If it helps place it in context - just say for instance that it was a cab driver and not my cousin - I still hold he should have been armed - legal or not. (By the way - I have good friend who did kill someone in self-defense with an "illegal" handgun while working as a cab driver in Daytona.)

Your line of argument would imply that there should be no cab drivers because it is sometimes dangerous to be a cabdriver and people should have better judgement.

It is conceding to the rising tide of scum.:barf:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top