Jump to content
gleninjersey

I DON'T NEED LIGHTS FOR MY FIREARMS: CHANGE MY MIND

Recommended Posts

I also recently got a TLR-7 for my P320 Compact, with both an IWB and OWB light bearing holsters from Stealth Gear.

I also hate strobe features.  A 500 lumen light will more than disorient someone in the dark, strobe is not needed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2018 at 0:56 AM, Sniper22 said:

Do you regularly have unknown 16 year old kids wandering around the inside of your house at 2 AM?

 

I dont have anyone regularly in my home that shouldn't be there, but shit happens. 

Pleanty of cases around the country of drunk kids even adults forcefully stumbling into the wrong house, and getting shot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2018 at 6:31 PM, SW9racer said:

 

After research, I like the size and specs of the 7 over the 1, for not much more $.  Yes the runtime is an hour shorter but it’s not an everyday flashlight. I will be putting it on a railed Beretta 92.  Any negatives you encountered, would you pick the 7 again?

There is NO REASON, to get the 7 over the 1s or hl if its going on a 92. The TLR-1 fits great on my M9A1, like a glove. The 7 would be much better on say a compact PX4, in fact I cant get the TLR-1 to fit mine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

I dont have anyone regularly in my home that shouldn't be there, but shit happens. 

Pleanty of cases around the country of drunk kids even adults forcefully stumbling into the wrong house, and getting shot. 

If you're "forcefully" stumbling into my house at night, it's going to take a lot of forceful and intentional stumbling. That WON'T be accidental, no matter how much you drank..

Your "greeting" will be appropriate for your action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sniper22 said:

If you're "forcefully" stumbling into my house at night, it's going to take a lot of forceful and intentional stumbling. That WON'T be accidental, no matter how much you drank..

Your "greeting" will be appropriate for your action.

I'm sure most people feel the same way, but why not at the very least, make no assumtions as to what may or may not happen? 

Drunk people make very bad decisions sometimes... 

I'm just pointing out that a prosecutor may not believe that simply a person in your house constitutes a threat. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

I'm sure most people feel the same way, but why not at the very least, make no assumtions as to what may or may not happen? 

Drunk people make very bad decisions sometimes... 

I'm just pointing out that a prosecutor may not believe that simply a person in your house constitutes a threat. 

If you read my posts above, you will see that this "person" will have to go through multiple deterrents before they get to the point of being inside my house. Based on all of that evidence, there wouldn't be a prosecutor in the country that could write that off as a simple, drunken mistake or bad decision. If someone is found inside my house at night, it's a definite, physical, intentional act to either rob or physically attack us, not to use my bathroom to take a piss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, SW9racer said:

Here are my reasons for the 7:

New technology, brighter led than the 1 even with a single battery, with 90 minutes run time.  Bright white light, does really well eliminating the shadows in the woods behind my yard. 

Size, it can fit on everything I have without sticking past the muzzle.  The width is the same as the slide and doesn’t stick out.  The weight is very light, not really noticeable. 

Controls, I do like how the buttons function, very intuitive. I never had a 1 so can’t compare, but no complaints on this design. The strobe feature can be completely disabled. Simple push for on then push for off, or push and hold for temp on.  Push twice for strobe if enabled. 

If you shop around you can find the 7 for about 100, equal in price so I concentrated on the design and features. 

I get you on the aesthetics.. light past muzzle I found unpleasant and abhorrent. But then @High Exposure made a valid point years past. “ a stand off”. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sniper22 said:

If you read my posts above, you will see that this "person" will have to go through multiple deterrents before they get to the point of being inside my house. Based on all of that evidence, there wouldn't be a prosecutor in the country that could write that off as a simple, drunken mistake or bad decision. If someone is found inside my house at night, it's a definite, physical, intentional act to either rob or physically attack us, not to use my bathroom to take a piss.

There is only one definitive physical detterent to a drunk, and that's a locked door. The purpose of this discuss is to point out the person believes they are breaking into their own home. 

While highly unlikely the situation may be, I don't know why anyone would use an assumption of intent when they have the ability to visual determine it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sniper22 said:

If you read my posts above, you will see that this "person" will have to go through multiple deterrents before they get to the point of being inside my house. Based on all of that evidence, there wouldn't be a prosecutor in the country that could write that off as a simple, drunken mistake or bad decision. If someone is found inside my house at night, it's a definite, physical, intentional act to either rob or physically attack us, not to use my bathroom to take a piss.

I don't know why you're having a hard time understanding that in the state of NJ you can't legally shoot someone for simply breaking into your house.  If they're not an immediate threat to you, you can't legally use deadly force against them.  Believe it or not, the police are actually quite good at their jobs.  It will normally be pretty apparent whether they were a threat to you or not.  There are COUNTLESS prosecutors that would gladly stand against you on an issue like this.  To assume that you're going to be safe shooting anyone that happens to make it past your deterrents is incredibly ignorant.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, vjf915 said:

I don't know why you're having a hard time understanding that in the state of NJ you can't legally shoot someone for simply breaking into your house.  If they're not an immediate threat to you, you can't legally use deadly force against them.  Believe it or not, the police are actually quite good at their jobs.  It will normally be pretty apparent whether they were a threat to you or not.  There are COUNTLESS prosecutors that would gladly stand against you on an issue like this.  To assume that you're going to be safe shooting anyone that happens to make it past your deterrents is incredibly ignorant.

I don't know why you're having such a hard time understanding that people like to talk a lot of "bullshit hypothetical" situations on the internet. What it really boils down to is "legally" they will piss their pants if something like this ever happened.

I didn't read any of this thread just saw your post in my feed and felt like breakin balls. Like you I'm tired of all the "hypothetical" situations. 

 

Also I don't have lights for my guns, I have guns for my lights. (Witch I, a new jersey resident, will never need to use either of because Phil Murphy is keeping me safe)

Thread closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vjf915 said:

I don't know why you're having a hard time understanding that in the state of NJ you can't legally shoot someone for simply breaking into your house.  If they're not an immediate threat to you, you can't legally use deadly force against them.  Believe it or not, the police are actually quite good at their jobs.

Police are good at writing reports AFTER the fact, if you think they are there to protect you, good luck. Apparently you've never heard the saying, "when SECONDS count, police are MINUTES away".

17 minutes ago, louu said:

I didn't read any of this thread just saw your post in my feed and felt like breakin balls.

Maybe you should read it, education is knowledge.

1 hour ago, vjf915 said:

It will normally be pretty apparent whether they were a threat to you or not.  There are COUNTLESS prosecutors that would gladly stand against you on an issue like this.  To assume that you're going to be safe shooting anyone that happens to make it past your deterrents is incredibly ignorant.

Since there seems to be an issue with understanding my point of view, I'll repost what I said earlier in the thread, for the ones not following along:

On 9/9/2018 at 4:26 PM, Sniper22 said:

I'm going to outline and describe what I see are the steps that happen in a HD situation in my case, not for the "experts" here, but for any lurker reading at home. This might help some people understand.

1) If an potential intruder approaches my house, the first thing he'll see are our cars in the driveway, as we don't park in the garage, so he should know someone could be home.

2) I have motion activated lights surround my house, so one of them will turn on when he approaches. That's the first deterrent.

3) If he has any awareness, he should notice the multiple video security cameras that surround my house when the lights come on. Deterrent number 2.

4) If he still decides to approach, he's going to encounter dead bolted doors and locked windows, so to accomplish entry, he's going to have to destroy something and force his way in. Deterrent number 3 (First law broken).

5) If he gains entry through a window or door, the audible alarm will go off. Deterrent number 4.

6) When he actually enters, he'll be met by my barking dog, so either he might leave or force his way pass the dog. If he decides to harm the dog, that's the (second law broken).

6) At that point, I'll be waken up by the noise, and will be heading towards the point of entry/noise with my HD gun. Maybe at that point the intruder decides to change his plan. Deterrent number 5.

7) If the intruder is still intent, after all the above, in either robbery or a physical attack (third or fourth law broken), he will be met with deadly force. I don't need a WL at that point to have a daylight face to face with him. I only need to see where he is, and respond accordingly.

I seriously doubt a jury would consider me guilty of manslaughter in that situation.

So, in that situation, I have zero issues taking my best chance with a prosecutor, as the alternative isn't acceptable. Do drunks usually go through all of that to get into what they perceive to be "their" house.

But hey, if that situation happens in your house, feel free to have the intruder sit down at your kitchen table, make a pot of coffee to sober up the "drunk", and discuss why he made the drunken error of breaking into your house, while waiting for the police to show up. It will be fun!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sniper22 said:

Police are good at writing reports AFTER the fact, if you think they are there to protect you, good luck. Apparently you've never heard the saying, "when SECONDS count, police are MINUTES away".

Maybe you should read it, education is knowledge.

Since there seems to be an issue with understanding my point of view, I'll repost what I said earlier in the thread, for the ones not following along:

 

So, in that situation, I have zero issues taking my best chance with a prosecutor, as the alternative isn't acceptable. Do drunks usually go through all of that to get into what they perceive to be "their" house.

But hey, if that situation happens in your house, feel free to have the intruder sit down at your kitchen table, make a pot of coffee to sober up the "drunk", and discuss why he made the drunken error of breaking into your house, while waiting for the police to show up. It will be fun!

 

If you read what I said, and interpreted that as stating that the police would protect you, then it's quite obvious that you also lack reading comprehension skills. Maybe the cherry picking is what led to you think that's what the sentence meant. Hint: Read the sentence that you decided to leave out.

And you seem to be under the impression that one's willingness to push through your deterrents is justification to shoot them. It's not. But do whatever you want. Just don't be surprised when you're charged with and convicted of a crime.

ETA: I'm not talking about some drunk that accidentally breaks into your house. I'm talking about a burglar that intentionally enters, but does not actually pose a threat to your safety.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vjf915 said:

If you read what I said, and interpreted that as stating that the police would protect you, then it's quite obvious that you also lack reading comprehension skills. Maybe the cherry picking is what led to you think that's what the sentence meant. Hint: Read the sentence that you decided to leave out.

And you seem to be under the impression that one's willingness to push through your deterrents is justification to shoot them. It's not. But do whatever you want. Just don't be surprised when you're charged with and convicted of a crime.

@Sniper22 you are seriously becoming the kamela Harris of this forum. It’s not pretty to watch

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Zeke said:

@Sniper22 you are seriously becoming the kamela Harris of this forum. It’s not pretty to watch

@Zeke

Why is that, because I sometimes have a different opinion on a topic then others?

Last time I checked, we were in America, and we have a 1st Amendment, right?

Or, is this forum located in North Korea? 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Krdshrk said:

I may have to consider the TLR-7 now.  I've got a couple TLR-1's but the -7 looks nice.  Especially the compactness.

I just picked one up myself and put it on a g23 nightstand gun. Fits perfect and looks great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If @Sniper22 doesn't want to purchase a WML then that should be his decision. Having a WML is a significant benefit as others have pointed out. His reasons for opting not to go with one is also valid since he knows his house better anyone on here. If someone is so set on having him use a WML then send him one yourself.

There's no 1st Amendment on this forum when others put forth their moral interpretation and beat you down with it. This is not directed at anyone, just a general statement where I've seen this forum has changed over the years.

Regards,

TokenEntry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Zeke said:

@Sniper22 you are seriously becoming the kamela Harris of this forum. It’s not pretty to watch

First off - get the name right, it's Kamala Harris.  2nd - this is pretty much a personal attack - stop it. </mod high horse>

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holy Craps.....
Stop....   For once, can we not eat our own..... People are allowed different opinions..... respect them.


Agree and disagree...

He is a big boy, so he definitely can make his own decision. Him not running a light doesn’t bother me in the slightest... but I do opt for a weapon light. The premise of this thread is to discuss the positives/negatives of a weapon light. I think the issue is that some people take it too far, whether they have to be right or take someone having a different opinion as an attack.

Personally, I am now more interested in the stem of this thread about automatically considering someone who passed over multiple layers of security (dog, alarm, locked door) as a threat. Logically, you likely are facing someone who is looking to commit harm against you/family/someone else... but doesn’t mean it is the case. I disagree with that. Not just because the legal standpoint, but because the drunk (or someone mentally handicapped or suffering a mental illness) that walked into the wrong house that was shot/killed is still shot/killed. I have a conscious, and while I know I’d still be bothered by shooting an actual threat (what needs to be done needs to be done, but still taking a person’s life... not the same as shooting a deer), I personally couldn’t picture myself shooting an innocent person. I touched on it earlier in the thread, but I hope I (as well as anyone else here) never have to shoot someone.

That being said, hopefully this thread can be saved opposed to locking. I definitely have been/continuing to screw around with strobe function to see if there is any merit there... even though I believe Ray Ray likely summed up their usefulness. I have to see which lights I run can’t disable that (I believe the LaserMax on my J-frame can’t... but all the Streamlights usually can).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That being said, hopefully this thread can be saved opposed to locking. I definitely have been/continuing to screw around with strobe function to see if there is any merit there... even though I believe Ray Ray likely summed up their usefulness. I have to see which lights I run can’t disable that (I believe the LaserMax on my J-frame can’t... but all the Streamlights usually can).

Speaking from a shooting perspective, specifically in IDPA no-light stages, if a shooter accidentally hits the strobe option on their flashlights; it usually means that they will be tanking that stage.

That's not to say that there may be some benefit in disorienting someone, but it becomes a hindrance if you actually have to shoot (accurately).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That being said, hopefully this thread can be saved opposed to locking. I definitely have been/continuing to screw around with strobe function to see if there is any merit there... even though I believe Ray Ray likely summed up their usefulness. I have to see which lights I run can’t disable that (I believe the LaserMax on my J-frame can’t... but all the Streamlights usually can).
Speaking from a shooting perspective, specifically in IDPA no-light stages, if a shooter accidentally hits the strobe option on their flashlights; it usually means that they will be tanking that stage.
That's not to say that there may be some benefit in disorienting someone, but it becomes a hindrance if you actually have to shoot (accurately).
This is especially true after a shot it two. You get a lot of the strobe back in your face from the gun smoke.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to being just as distracting to the user as the target, the biggest downside to strobes is they mask subtle movement - such as hands inching closer to a hidden weapon, or body posturing to indicate a fight response.

That can be seriousy bad JuJu when you need to watch the hands and discern body language.

Strobes may have a niche role in handheld light applications but do not belong on a dedicated weaponlight. 

Operating a weaponlight should be simple and intuitive and the switches should be easy to operate and require little to no change in your grip to use. All you should have to think about is light on and light off.

If you are messing with other functions of the light such as strobe functions, beam focus, or alternate brightness settings, or if you are changing hand position to be able to active the lights “switchology” you are taking away both cognitive and procedural ability that you will need to successfully end the confrontation - even if you never have to fire a shot.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2018 at 10:57 AM, 67gtonut said:

Holy Craps.....

Stop....   For once, can we not eat our own..... People are allowed different opinions..... respect them. 

Allowed different opinions, yes.  But using a weapon for home or self defense without being able to actually identify if the person you're shooting is a threat or not is reckless, and has the potential to give the community a bad reputation.  There's no reason to get upset about a community not wanting a bad name because someone decided to do something reckless.  There's a huge difference between eating our own, and holding each other accountable.

For those that think seeing the silhouette of a person is enough identification to shoot them, please answer this.  Why don't you drive in the dark without your headlights on?  There's enough ambient light from the moon and street lights that you can see the silhouette of other cars, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vjf915 said:

Allowed different opinions, yes.  But using a weapon for home or self defense without being able to actually identify if the person you're shooting is a threat or not is reckless, and has the potential to give the community a bad reputation.  There's no reason to get upset about a community not wanting a bad name because someone decided to do something reckless.  There's a huge difference between eating our own, and holding each other accountable.

For those that think seeing the silhouette of a person is enough identification to shoot them, please answer this.  Why don't you drive in the dark without your headlights on?  There's enough ambient light from the moon and street lights that you can see the silhouette of other cars, right?

The problem I see here is that people are already assuming guilt for a hypothetical situation that didn't occur and are repeatedly beating it to death with follow up posts. The way I see it is that the additional posts about a HD/SD situation no longer has @Sniper22 best interest at heart at this point. To me, some people don't seem to be satisfied unless it really does happen where they can post a "I told you so!" after the fact. Again, everyone has provided their opinions and the resulting consequences that will follow if this kind of scenario ever did happen. I'm going to assume that @Sniper22 will take these opinions into serious consideration and will weigh his options if he ever encounters a scenario where he need to use his firearm in a HD/SD situation.

Regards,

TokenEntry

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2018 at 10:33 AM, Sniper22 said:

@Zeke

Why is that, because I sometimes have a different opinion on a topic then others?

Last time I checked, we were in America, and we have a 1st Amendment, right?

Or, is this forum located in North Korea? 

 

Because you quote everyone out of context.

On 9/24/2018 at 11:44 AM, Krdshrk said:

First off - get the name right, it's Kamala Harris.  2nd - this is pretty much a personal attack - stop it. </mod high horse>

 

You’re jus looking for a reason 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2018 at 11:23 AM, TokenEntry said:

If @Sniper22 doesn't want to purchase a WML then that should be his decision. Having a WML is a significant benefit as others have pointed out. His reasons for opting not to go with one is also valid since he knows his house better anyone on here. If someone is so set on having him use a WML then send him one yourself.

There's no 1st Amendment on this forum when others put forth their moral interpretation and beat you down with it. This is not directed at anyone, just a general statement where I've seen this forum has changed over the years.

Regards,

TokenEntry

He can be wrong if he wants to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...