# The appeal of guns



## Gong Tao Jai

A couple of years ago I was visiting a relative who lives on a farm. He asked if I wanted to go out behind the house and shoot some of his guns. I was ambivalent, but decided I would give it a try, because I figured it was probably the only opportunity I would get to fire a gun. I LOVED it, which was not what I was expecting at all. 
A few months ago I found myself daydreaming about getting a gun of my own, although I have no use for it and would only very rarely get to fire it. 
A friend who lived in Saigon during the Vietnam war found it prudent to carry a gun in her purse at that time, and talked about how much she loved the gun. It sounded more like she was talking about a lost pet than a firearm. 
I know that some AAAC members are gun enthusiasts, so maybe you guys can help me understand: what is it about guns that is so entrancing?


----------



## Rich

> quote:_Originally posted by Gong Tao Jai_
> 
> A couple of years ago I was visiting a relative who lives on a farm. He asked if I wanted to go out behind the house and shoot some of his guns. I was ambivalent, but decided I would give it a try, because I figured it was probably the only opportunity I would get to fire a gun. I LOVED it, which was not what I was expecting at all.
> A few months ago I found myself daydreaming about getting a gun of my own, although I have no use for it and would only very rarely get to fire it.
> A friend who lived in Saigon during the Vietnam war found it prudent to carry a gun in her purse at that time, and talked about how much she loved the gun. It sounded more like she was talking about a lost pet than a firearm.
> I know that some AAAC members are gun enthusiasts, so maybe you guys can help me understand: what is it about guns that is so entrancing?


Freud knew.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Gong Tao Jai_
> 
> A couple of years ago I was visiting a relative who lives on a farm. He asked if I wanted to go out behind the house and shoot some of his guns. I was ambivalent, but decided I would give it a try, because I figured it was probably the only opportunity I would get to fire a gun. I LOVED it, which was not what I was expecting at all.
> A few months ago I found myself daydreaming about getting a gun of my own, although I have no use for it and would only very rarely get to fire it.
> A friend who lived in Saigon during the Vietnam war found it prudent to carry a gun in her purse at that time, and talked about how much she loved the gun. It sounded more like she was talking about a lost pet than a firearm.
> I know that some AAAC members are gun enthusiasts, so maybe you guys can help me understand: what is it about guns that is so entrancing?
> 
> 
> 
> Freud knew.
Click to expand...

here I probrably agree with you, Rich. Guns are not toys and they shouldn't be treated as such (they should be saved for our war with the muslim fundementalists[8D])


----------



## crazyquik

Sigmund Freud: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud)

Guns are tools. They are inanimate objects which people use to perform tasks, often better than they could with a bow and arrow or with a sword.

You can hunt your own food with them. You can protect your person with them, and in some states your castle. You can use them to control pests on your property (if you have property). In the event of civil disorder, you are less at the mercy of invaders, Vikings, Atilla and his band of Huns, or looters (although for years people have been telling me that civil disorder would *never* happen in America...)

They are simply a tool which makes you more self sufficient and less reliant on someone else. And that feeling is a powerful feeling for most people. Just like when you first started getting paid, or the freedom of moving away from home, or owning your own car.


----------



## globetrotter

to me it is something that is tied up with the whole "regimental tie" issue. 

1. I find it distastful for adult men to play pretend games.
2. I think that a lot of gun ownership is related to men playing pretend games, at least in their mind
3. guns can be very dangerous to have around, if not treated correctly
4. I do not believe that most american men treat their guns correctly
5. having used firearms as a tool for several years, profetionally I find it distastful, and dangerous, for people who do not use firearms proffetionaly as tools, to have access to them. 
6. I find most of the arguments for gun ownership to be self serving - the vast majority of American men who own guns do so because they feel it is "cool".
7. that said - following the civil unrest in katrina, I am seriously considering purchasing a firearm for my house.


----------



## FormerlyTM

Globetrotter,

1. The reason I own a firearm is to protect my life and property against anyone wishing to take either away from me, but only will use said firearm if I feel that the only way to protect my life is to take another person's. It is not a game. 

2. See number 1. 

3. Guns are not dangerous, people with guns are dangerous. This may seem like a flippant retort, but it is the truth. Unless you furnish evidence demostrating how a firearm has harmed someone without being operated by a human being, I will assume that you accept this as the gospel as well. 

4. I keep my firearm in a fireproof safe, unloaded, chamber open, with a steel cable lock through the action. I keep my ammunition in a separate location. This is how the MAJORITY of gun owners store their weapons. What you read in the media about unsafe firearm storage is representative of a small portion of the gun owning populace, which is being publicized by the anti-gun crown as a scare tatic. 

5. By your logic, most people shoud not be able to operate automobiles either, becausue they are not professionals at doing so. I find your statement arrogant and disrepectful. I handle my firearm as safely or in a more safe manner than some police officers I know. Further, I am as adept or more adept at handling my weapon than many professionals that operate firearms. As such, I think employing a firearm to make a living does not make you an expert, just one that earns a wage by doing so. 

6. See point #1. My reason for owning a firearm echoes most American gun owners. I do not own it for pleasure. It is a deadly weapon and I respect it as such.

7. I think you reenforced my arguements with that statement. 

Cheers,

TM


----------



## crazyquik

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 5. having used firearms as a tool for several years, profetionally I find it distastful, and dangerous, for people who do not use firearms proffetionaly as tools, to have access to them.


I can understand or agree with some of the other things you said.

Yes, guns are tools. Yes some tools are dangerous (chainsaws, bleach, fertilizer, cars). But I can't agree with the above quote.

We agree they are tools. If only professionals have these tools, then what happens when you need the use of it but there are no professionals around? This could be late at night in a parking garage, in your own home, or during periods of civil unrest.

Not to mention the Bill of Rights thing. Always good to have something incase the next King of England wants to reclaim his colonies.

Not to be combative, but you come off sounding a "good enough for me, but not for you" type. Much like the celebrities and politicians who argue for more gun control for the people while they hire body guards for themselves.


----------



## Kav

I didn't grow up around firearms. There was my grandfather's 1912 Winchester shotgun in a closet unshot because it kicked unmercifully ( years later I determined 2 3/4" full base shells in a 2 9/16" shotgun might be a factor[B)])On our 16th birthday my mother bought us BB rifles. We weren't allowed to shoot them until after a long drive to Red Rock in the desert. We were further humiliated when she made us wear gold, soft plastic roman legionaire helmets from our earlier toy collections. Standing in the debitage of beer bottles and human waste [xx(] I lost all interest. Then in Bootcamp I was handed a M 1 Garand to qualify for Honour Guard detail and later the M16. With proper instruction I managed to shoot expert on both. later we qualified with the 1911 .45 and S&W .38 Victory and again, somehow I shot expert.I was hooked! Stationed in Kodiak, I took my first green check to Krafts general store. Gunnar, the appropriately named salesman carefully questioned what I THOUGHT I needed and my experience. I walked out with a 98 Mauser in french grey with leaf sights chambered in 7x57 and a box of handloaded 174 grain cartridges. Happily the big brownies and I had some encounters that remained friendly. Later a rather intoxicated crab fisherman walked into the Breakers restaurant looking for drinking money. He was dragging a mint 28" barrelled 95 Winchester in .30-40 Krag and a funny peepsight. Everybody laughed at him but me. I borrowed $100 from my shipmate and paid $300 for it. Gunnar took one look and I walked out with another Mauser in .35 Whelen and a funny name Gunnar pronounced 'Gyp them and how'- Griffen and HoweI've owned or shot just about every category since then; for pleasure, serious military duties and self defence as an archaeologist stumbliing into marijuana farms. The social history and genius ( and what were they THINKING!) of design alone is fascinating. I'm a California liberal who loves putting on a tie and suit and taking a neophyte out to learn how to shoot almost as much as educating my liberal friends about the validity of firearms in a truly free- and responsible society.


----------



## ChubbyTiger

> quote:They are simply a tool which makes you more self sufficient and less reliant on someone else. And that feeling is a powerful feeling for most people. Just like when you first started getting paid, or the freedom of moving away from home, or owning your own car.


I think this is a large part of it. Especially as a man, somewhere in my deep subconscious is a need to be able to be self sufficient, protect myself and my family, etc. The first time I fired a gun was in college. If I didn't live in NYC, I'd own one now. Alas, NYC weapon laws are positively dictatorial in that regard.

Following Globetrotter's comments, I feel that it's worth mentioning the 2nd Amendment again. The whole reason that it's there is to ensure that the military are _not_ the only people with guns. With proper training, most people can become good enough with a gun to use it safely. Guns played a major role in transfering power from the aristocracy (miliraty officers) to the people, where it should stay. In the face of a tyrant (or looters, rapists etc) poplular ownership of firearms is the only way of avoiding the destruction of society (or life, liberty, and property).

CT


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by TimmyMac_
> 
> TimmyMac
> 
> 1. The reason I own a firearm is to protect my life and property against anyone wishing to take either away from me, but only will use said firearm if I feel that the only way to protect my life is to take another person's. It is not a game.
> 
> Valid point. I fully respect somebody who ownes and maintains a firearm for protection of his person/business/family. I would suggest, however, that in most cases, or perhaps many cases, a person will have weapons that are not appropriate for rational defence of their person/business/family, or they will have armed themselves without loking at other basic ways of protecting their family, such as smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, first aid kits, insurance etc. this leads me to believe, in many people's case, that there are other factors in the works, aside from protection.
> 
> 2. valid point. I believe that this is a major motivator of most american men who own firearms. IF I were to have firearms in my house- I would have a small firearm, and a long firearm - both the best for what I thought were the appropriate defencce needs of my house and my family. I find that many people who own firearms have several weapons that are totally inapropriate for their needs, but that look cool. I would ahve to conclude that a rational defense is not their primary moitivation.
> 
> 3. Guns are not dangerous, people with guns are dangerous. This may seem like a flippant retort, but it is the truth. Unless you furnish evidence demostrating how a firearm has harmed someone without being operated by a human being, I will assume that you accept this as the gospel as well.
> 
> guns make it easier for people to kill other people. the vast majority of people that I know, or know of, in the US, are careless with guns, in my opinion. guns make it easy to kill somebody, often too easy. also, people are too careless with lettign their guns fall into the hands of children and criminals. granted, this is not everybody, but it happens more than I believe it should.
> 
> 4. I keep my firearm in a fireproof safe, unloaded, chamber open, with a steel cable lock through the action. I keep my ammunition in a separate location. This is how the MAJORITY of gun owners store their weapons. What you read in the media about unsafe firearm storage is representative of a small portion of the gun owning populace, which is being publicized by the anti-gun crown as a scare tatic.
> 
> I appload you. I really do. If I believed that everybody who owns a firearm in the US did this, I would have no argument against firearm ownership. I would also believe that a person who is this careful would also make sure to be profetient with his firearms, and this is comforting, as well. The one member of my social circle who I know keeps firearms in his house keeps a loaded revolver on a shelf in his bedroom, and a shotgun in his closet. neither locked. he figured that his 4 year old daughter can't reach them, yet. I believe that this is more comon that you think - perhaps it is less common than I think, too.
> 
> 5. By your logic, most people shoud not be able to operate automobiles either, becausue they are not professionals at doing so. I find your statement arrogant and disrepectful. I handle my firearm as safely or in a more safe manner than some police officers I know. Further, I am as adept or more adept at handling my weapon than many professionals that operate firearms. As such, I think employing a firearm to make a living does not make you an expert, just one that earns a wage by doing so.
> 
> point taken - I have fired hundreds of thousands of rounds of high powered ammunition, most often in close formation with many other men, in smoke and dust filled rooms and often at night. I have never dischared a round in any direction other than it was intended, and I have never handled my weapon in a manner that endangered anybody who it was not my intention to endanger. That is the standard of saftey that I consider basic. I do not believe that most american gun owners adhere to the type of safty considerations that are needed - and I would site as evidence all the hunting and shooting accidents in the US.
> 
> there is another issue here - of the esthetics - in the same way that I would see it silly and worthy of ridicule for an adult man to play cowboy, or play pirate, I find it fairly silly that grown men would use a tool that is not part of thier vocation.
> 
> 6. See point #1. My reason for owning a firearm echoes most American gun owners. I do not own it for pleasure. It is a deadly weapon and I respect it as such.
> 
> if so, I respect that. might I ask you how many firearms you own and of what type?
> 
> 7. I think you reenforced my arguements with that statement.
> 
> agreed - I am not entirely convinced myself of my arguments. the basic argument for gun control is that the law enforcement agencies can control the peace. following something like katrina, I have much less faith in the law enforcement agencies, and more faith in my own ability to wield a firearm.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> TM


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a large part of it. Especially as a man, somewhere in my deep subconscious is a need to be able to be self sufficient, protect myself and my family, etc. The first time I fired a gun was in college. If I didn't live in NYC, I'd own one now. Alas, NYC weapon laws are positively dictatorial in that regard.
> 
> Following Globetrotter's comments, I feel that it's worth mentioning the 2nd Amendment again. The whole reason that it's there is to ensure that the military are _not_ the only people with guns. With proper training, most people can become good enough with a gun to use it safely. Guns played a major role in transfering power from the aristocracy (miliraty officers) to the people, where it should stay. In the face of a tyrant (or looters, rapists etc) poplular ownership of firearms is the only way of avoiding the destruction of society (or life, liberty, and property).
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> CT -
> 
> 1. I think that this is a nicer way of saying what I said - for subjective reasons, you think that holding a gun will make you feel safer and more in control. possibly. I am not convinced that the payoff is worth it. I think that the majority of the benifit of guns is in making men feel "Cool" - if you don't like the term, substitute "manly", or "powerful" or "in control".
> 
> 2. My feeling is that the point of the framers was more that every citizen could be part of the military - not that guns would be in the hands of the military alone. effectivly, with the same intention of preventing tyrany. but with the technology available at the time the constitution was written, I do not believe that anyone foresaw todays situaiton in terms of arms.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kav

Hopefully Jan Libourel will be finishing his coffee and commenting soon, so I will unchamber my mouth and flip the safety on while facing downrange. I would quote John lithgrow in Harry and the Hendersons, my favourite coming of age hunting movie- " It's a RIFLE dear, not a gun" and BMC Williams on January 3, 1974 " SR Kavanaugh, you will report to Mr. Bell ( a real Bell ) on the grinder and high port for one hour. At every lap's completion report to Mr Bell and recite LOUDLY "This is my rifle, this is my Gun..........." [:I]


----------



## crazyquik

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> Gunnar took one look and I walked out with another Mauser in .35 Whelen and a funny name Gunnar pronounced 'Gyp them and how'- Griffen and Howe


[:0][:0]

For those that dont know, this would be almost like walking into a consignment store and buying an A&S or Kilgour from someone who didn't know the product.

Eh, its just a suit. Eh, its just a Mauser.

True, but its nearly a bespoke Mauser from one of the most famous British makers...


----------



## crazyquik

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 2. My feeling is that the point of the framers was more that every citizen could be part of the military - not that guns would be in the hands of the military alone.


You're spot on with that.

The Milita Act of 1792 (I think?) basically says every able bodied man _is_ the military reserve, and should have a longarm and ammunition and the community officers can summonds you to come drill in the town square.

But I haven't seen much of that happening around here lately. I also dont recall reading in the newspaper of anyone being charged with violation of that law.


----------



## Cliff

> quote:_Originally posted by TimmyMac_
> 
> Globetrotter,
> 
> 1. The reason I own a firearm is to protect my life and property against anyone wishing to take either away from me, but only will use said firearm if I feel that the only way to protect my life is to take another person's. It is not a game.
> 
> 2. See number 1.
> 
> 3. Guns are not dangerous, people with guns are dangerous. This may seem like a flippant retort, but it is the truth. Unless you furnish evidence demostrating how a firearm has harmed someone without being operated by a human being, I will assume that you accept this as the gospel as well.
> 
> 4. I keep my firearm in a fireproof safe, unloaded, chamber open, with a steel cable lock through the action. I keep my ammunition in a separate location. This is how the MAJORITY of gun owners store their weapons. What you read in the media about unsafe firearm storage is representative of a small portion of the gun owning populace, which is being publicized by the anti-gun crown as a scare tatic.
> 
> 5. By your logic, most people shoud not be able to operate automobiles either, becausue they are not professionals at doing so. I find your statement arrogant and disrepectful. I handle my firearm as safely or in a more safe manner than some police officers I know. Further, I am as adept or more adept at handling my weapon than many professionals that operate firearms. As such, I think employing a firearm to make a living does not make you an expert, just one that earns a wage by doing so.
> 
> 6. See point #1. My reason for owning a firearm echoes most American gun owners. I do not own it for pleasure. It is a deadly weapon and I respect it as such.
> 
> 7. I think you reenforced my arguements with that statement.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> TM


Good answers TM, I feel much the same with a few exceptions:

item # 3. I 'got into' firearms at an early age, I was ten years old when we moved from the city to the 'country'. To fit in w/peers, I joined a Junior Rifle club in my town, we learned to have both respect and fun with our target rifles. We shot competitively on weekends against other school kids across Massachusetts, we used to train twice a week in the basement of a school - keeping our target rifles in our school lockers (the bolt and ammo was seperate but also in the locker). No one ever misused their rifles or threatened anyone in the six or so years we all did this activity. Wouldn't even think of it! So, I learned the _fun_ part as well as the respect and still shoot competitively today.

item # 4; I also keep my firearms in a locked gun safe, although two of them are loaded and ready for easy access.....in case. An unloded gun is a.........well a rock.

So, bottom line, there are many reasons for firearms ownership. Along with the obvious ones, I _DO_ also own mine for the pleasure of shooting. My children, both male and female have been taught the safe handling and respect but do not fear firearms. I am and hold a certified instructors rating in many aspects of firearms safety, home defense, personal defense, rifle, pistol and shotgun.


----------



## FormerlyTM

Globetrotter,

I think we can agree that responsible gun ownership is the key here. I feel much better about you views now that I see the nuances behind them.

I actually have four firearms, summarized as follows:

H&K USP in .40, which is the only gun I keep in my house. 

Cliff, I can remove this gun from the safe, remove the bore lock, load the magazine and have a round in the chamber in about 15 seconds. Hardly a rock. NO GUN SHOULD EVER BE STORED LOADED!!!

Benelli Super Black Eagle 3" chamber in 12ga. Best shotgun I have ever owned, period. 

Beretta SO5 Skeet 2-3/4" chamber in 12ga.

Winchester Model 94 .30-30. The "trad" deer rifle. This gun has been in my family for three genreations. It was manufactured in 1934. I have had it smithed a couple times, but still works great. 

The shotguns and rifle I keep at my father's house in a 2 ton floor safe. 

Cheers,

TM


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by TimmyMac_
> 
> Globetrotter,
> 
> I think we can agree that responsible gun ownership is the key here. I feel much better about you views now that I see the nuances behind them.
> 
> I actually have four firearms, summarized as follows:
> 
> H&K USP in .40, which is the only gun I keep in my house.
> 
> Cliff, I can remove this gun from the safe, remove the bore lock, load the magazine and have a round in the chamber in about 15 seconds. Hardly a rock. NO GUN SHOULD EVER BE STORED LOADED!!!
> 
> Benelli Super Black Eagle 3" chamber in 12ga. Best shotgun I have ever owned, period.
> 
> Beretta SO5 Skeet 2-3/4" chamber in 12ga.
> 
> Winchester Model 94 .30-30. The "trad" deer rifle. This gun has been in my family for three genreations. It was manufactured in 1934. I have had it smithed a couple times, but still works great.
> 
> The shotguns and rifle I keep at my father's house in a 2 ton floor safe.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> TM


TM,

this is actually a perfect example of responsible gun ownership.

there are two types of gun owners that I run into a lot - guys who have 15 handguns around the house, running from a 22 deringer to a 45 dessert eagle. I find this problematic for a few reasons - first, if you are really interested in home defense, then there will be a weapon which is perfect for the defense of your home and family. if so, then why have 14 other weapons? why not have 2 of the right one? also, if you have that many different weapons around, are you going to be clear as to what your plan is in the event you need them, or are you going to have to then decide "22? 38? or big artillary?" thirdly, I don't think anybody really needs a .45 dessert eagle, it strikes me as too much for anybody to really get the most out of.

the other type is like the guy I know - keeps his guns around his kids, unlocked, drinks a lot, drinks when he hunts, drives to go hunting with a loaded shotgun in the cab of his car. that kind of thing.

both of these I find distastful, and the second just plain scares me.

I would love to have a licensing program - take a 3 week course, once in your life, and get your license. every 5 years talk to a "parole officer" get your eyes checked and fire a dozen rounds under observation, get your record checked for criminal offenses, and you're all set for 5 more years. as long as people can safley handle their firearms, and keep them safe and secure, I have no problem with them in principal.

by the way, not that you care about my opinion, I am sure, but that is a very nice and neat collection. If I ever decide to keep some firearms in my house, those would be very close to what I would want.


----------



## ChubbyTiger

> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 2. My feeling is that the point of the framers was more that every citizen could be part of the military - not that guns would be in the hands of the military alone.
> 
> 
> 
> You're spot on with that.
> 
> The Milita Act of 1792 (I think?) basically says every able bodied man _is_ the military reserve, and should have a longarm and ammunition and the community officers can summonds you to come drill in the town square.
> 
> But I haven't seen much of that happening around here lately. I also dont recall reading in the newspaper of anyone being charged with violation of that law.
Click to expand...

I think we probably ought to go back to that. Not enough Americans take their responsibilities as citizens seriously. Fewer than 50% even vote, for goodness sake.

I agree that every community should have a militia. Maybe one weekend per year of firearms and organizational training. Then, if/when situations arise, the community can take care of things until the professionals arrive. Helping evacuation efforts, preventing looting, limiting the influence of street gangs, lowering illegal immigration, etc. Requiring the service of every able bodied adult would reduce the 'gun toting yahoo' factor endemic in present day organizations.

This would definately help with the firearm training problems, too.

And honestly, the number of unintentional deaths of children in the US is pretty low. The CDC reports 115 in 2002 (the last year for which data were available) in the 0-17 age group. 1400 total, including all firearm deaths (homicide is the vast majority of the extra). So Americans aren't _that_ bad at firearm storage. Don't get me wrong, 1 death is 1 too many, but the statistics don't back up the idea that billions of kids accidentally kill themselves with guns each year.

CT


----------



## FormerlyTM

Globetrotter,

With few exceptions, I find most everyone here civil, well read and educated. As such, I respect the people here and thier opinions despite the fact they we may not always see eye to eye. 

It has taken me about 6 years to amass my collection, with the exception of the 30-30, which is an heirloom. I had a Glock 23 before the H&K and might go back some day, but who knows. As for the shotguns, I will most likely own these for the rest of my life barring some accident that causes them to fail. 

Cheers,

TM

`The finest opportunity ever given to the world was thrown away because the passion for equality made vain the hope for freedom.' - Lord Acton


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> And honestly, the number of unintentional deaths of children in the US is pretty low. The CDC reports 115 in 2002 (the last year for which data were available) in the 0-17 age group. 1400 total, including all firearm deaths (homicide is the vast majority of the extra). So Americans aren't _that_ bad at firearm storage. Don't get me wrong, 1 death is 1 too many, but the statistics don't back up the idea that billions of kids accidentally kill themselves with guns each year.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> I have to admit that accidental deaths by pools is higher. still, it seems so damn avoidable to keep your guns safe. In Israel, if your gun is stolen and used in a crime, you are responsible for that crime. so nobody has more than one firearm at home, and they guard them very very carefully. you have a huge number of firearms in the population, and maybe one death every few years from firearm accidents, in the whole country. we can aim for that in the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## crazyquik

True, but different country, different culture. Every day Israel is, essentially, at war. 

More people (by %) in Isreal carry guns on them than the US. Probably over 10%. Thats a big no-no in many major US cities. Even some school teachers carry guns there. In the past, terrorists would open fire in public, but they were often gunned down, which was one reason they switched to suicide bombing. You would probably be safer to walk around openly carrying a pistol than wearing a coat in the summer with a big backpack. 

FWIW, I think Switzerland still has a militia. Perhaps we can ask our Swiss poster for input. If I understand right, every able bodied male up to a certain age does one weekend every so often, and one week a year. They also keep thier weapons (Sig 550s, select fire) in thier homes. I think this is closer to what our framers intended.

edit: xcubbies doesn't have his email listed in his profile


----------



## crazyquik

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> I agree that every community should have a militia. Maybe one weekend per year of firearms and organizational training. Then, if/when situations arise, the community can take care of things until the professionals arrive. Requiring the service of every able bodied adult would reduce the 'gun toting yahoo' factor endemic in present day organizations.


In Jefferson and Plaquemines parrish they were deputizing those who stayed behind as "essential workers" who were supposed to secure the parish. Some of rural LA claimed they didn't see the federal govt for 4 days (or 6?)days after the storm. Everything was tied down in New Orleans. Later aid workers were deputized so they could stay out after the curfews and go thru checkpoints.

We have all sorts of reserve medical help and first responders for more minor occurences, but this is evidence that there is a lack of first responders to "homeland security" type threats.

What sort of trips my trigger is that while citizens were told to move out, and even unlawfully disarmed, "private military contracters" like Blackwater were being paid to come in. If there were a militia or "civil reserve" there would be no need for Blackwater mercenaries.


----------



## 16128

> quote:_Originally posted by TimmyMac_
> 4. I keep my firearm in a fireproof safe, unloaded, chamber open, with a steel cable lock through the action. I keep my ammunition in a separate location. This is how the MAJORITY of gun owners store their weapons.


I just had a conversation with a friend of mine, a police officer who takes me to the gun range, who advised me to get a gun for self-protection when my husband is out of town. He suggested I keep it on my person while alone in the house; having it locked in a safe is pointless. (We don't have any little curious children, however.)

*"Buy the best, and you will only cry once." - Chinese proverb*


----------



## Rich

> quote:_Originally posted by VS_
> 
> I just had a conversation with a friend of mine, a police officer who takes me to the gun range, who advised me to get a gun for self-protection when my husband is out of town. He suggested I keep it on my person while alone in the house; having it locked in a safe is pointless. (We don't have any little curious children, however.)


Should a lady's tailored suit be fitted with a gun pocket? A holster to match your shoes? Designer guns?


----------



## 16128

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> Should a lady's tailored suit be fitted with a gun pocket? A holster to match your shoes? Designer guns?


Agent Scully must keep hers somewhere!


----------



## ChubbyTiger

Scully - Mmmmm. [:I]

VS, I was under the impression that owning a handgun in the UK was virtually impossible. Also, that using said handgun to defend yourself could easily result in criminal charges being brought against you. Is that the case over there or am I grossly misinformed. Would be the first time.

CT


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by VS_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by TimmyMac_
> 4. I keep my firearm in a fireproof safe, unloaded, chamber open, with a steel cable lock through the action. I keep my ammunition in a separate location. This is how the MAJORITY of gun owners store their weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> I just had a conversation with a friend of mine, a police officer who takes me to the gun range, who advised me to get a gun for self-protection when my husband is out of town. He suggested I keep it on my person while alone in the house; having it locked in a safe is pointless. (We don't have any little curious children, however.)
> 
> 1. do you really think that you will "always" have it on your person - or will you set it down and walk around? it you are disciplined enough and smart enough to get a really small weapon to carry around all the time, this is probrably right. I don't think that is is realistic.
> 
> 2. is it really that dangerous where you live?
> 
> 3. it isn't only little children you have to be worried about. bigger children, neighbors children, cleaning people, delivery people, all sorts of people have been known to put their hands on a firearm that is around.
> 
> 4. keeping it safe seems to be the better choice.
> 
> *"Buy the best, and you will only cry once." - Chinese proverb*
Click to expand...


----------



## Cliff

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by VS_
> 
> I just had a conversation with a friend of mine, a police officer who takes me to the gun range, who advised me to get a gun for self-protection when my husband is out of town. He suggested I keep it on my person while alone in the house; having it locked in a safe is pointless. (We don't have any little curious children, however.)
> 
> 
> 
> Should a lady's tailored suit be fitted with a gun pocket? A holster to match your shoes? Designer guns?
Click to expand...

There are several manufacturers that sell purses with integral holsters. Perfect for a womens' carry options.


----------



## Rich

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> Scully - Mmmmm. [:I]
> 
> VS, I was under the impression that owning a handgun in the UK was virtually impossible. Also, that using said handgun to defend yourself could easily result in criminal charges being brought against you. Is that the case over there or am I grossly misinformed. Would be the first time.
> 
> CT


I think VS has just moved back to the US. What she describes would be impossible in the UK - or anywhere in Europe for that matter.


----------



## jbmcb

Firing guns can be fun, if done safely and appropriately. There is a primal need to make big noises and destroy things. It's a physical outlet for frustration and anger. Some people play sports, some run, some people shoot at targets on a firing range, or hunt.


Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## Murrah

Timmymac covered my feelings more eloquently than I could, so ditto what he said. The ownership of the means to protect and feed my wife and infant child is not a right granted by the Bill of Rights, but is granted by God. As someone who just saw up close on a 13-hour car trip out of Houston more of my fellow men than I wanted, I am thankful to God for the inventor of the SKS and the 7.62 x 39 mm round.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by jbmcb_
> 
> Firing guns can be fun, if done safely and appropriately. There is a primal need to make big noises and destroy things. It's a physical outlet for frustration and anger. Some people play sports, some run, some people shoot at targets on a firing range, or hunt.
> 
> Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


these are exactly the type of people that shouldn't have access to fire arms.


----------



## Kav

The firearm debate settled long ago into two cliche ridden fogs of stale fart platitudes, statistics and anecdotal stories by two entrenched positions singing to their respective choirs. Just once I'd like somebody to pick up a bone and with Thus Sprach Zarathustra playing in the background come up with something new and er, smashing to say. But I fear bones will be outlawed altogether or reserved for the big alpha apes. Quoting the american freedom fighter Geronimo at his final surrender " hand over your arms my people. We can always kill Mexicans with rocks."


----------



## Hugh Morrison

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> Scully - Mmmmm. [:I]
> 
> VS, I was under the impression that owning a handgun in the UK was virtually impossible. Also, that using said handgun to defend yourself could easily result in criminal charges being brought against you. Is that the case over there or am I grossly misinformed. Would be the first time.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> I think VS has just moved back to the US. What she describes would be impossible in the UK - or anywhere in Europe for that matter.
Click to expand...

It is pretty much impossible to legally own a pistol or rifle in the UK (although shotguns are commonplace in the country). However, thanks to our non-existent border controls it is ludicrously easy for criminals to obtain any kind of firearm they like, and to use them pretty much with impunity, for as the Jamaican yardies say about England 'The law don't hang, the cops don't bang, they lock ya up, but not for lang'.

'The casual idea is the triumph of misguided egalitarianism. By playing to the desire to seem non-judgmental, the Slob has succeeded in forcing his tastes on the world at large (because to object to inappropriate dress would be judgmental)'- Patrick07690


----------



## JLibourel

I note that I am weighing in late on this. If I wanted to be cynical, I could say that they are security symbols and virility props...not that there is anything wrong with either of these goals. I certainly sleep more soundly with the knowledge that a .45 auto is with me, and I think an armed man does walk just a little bit taller. I often quote the old Latin maxim (and damned if I know where it comes from) "Sine timore Achilles armatus." (Achilles armed is without fear.)

The mastery of a firearm is very soul-satisfying, especially when so few men relatively speaking have much skill at arms.

Finally, they are just inherently fascinating. There are so many aspects that one can discuss: history, ballistics, mechanics, quality control, killing power, the relative merits of various firearms...after all, that's how I make my living.


----------



## Earthmover

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by jbmcb_
> 
> Firing guns can be fun, if done safely and appropriately. There is a primal need to make big noises and destroy things. It's a physical outlet for frustration and anger. Some people play sports, some run, some people shoot at targets on a firing range, or hunt.
> 
> 
> 
> these are exactly the type of people that shouldn't have access to fire arms.
Click to expand...

I think you may be being slightly harsh on jbmcb. I think it's true that a good majority of males do have an affinity for destruction and ruckus. And I think it's good to have safe outlets such that they don't manifest itself in unhealthy ways for themselves and society. Hunting is a bigger issue, in my opinion, but I don't see anything wrong with a person frequenting the firing range to be entertained and to quell certain primal instincts. He has said that he's only using it in a safe manner; there was no implication that he has Jack Daniel's in one hand and a shotgun in the other.

As for myself, I always loved projectiles of every kind (let's not get too Freudian). When I see a lake, the first thing I think of is skipping a stone on its surface. Walking down the street, I like to throw garbage into the trash can from 5-15 feet. I'm good at the ol' fraternity "sport" called Beirut. I have a composite bow I use in my backyard from time to time. The point is, I love the process involved in aiming and shooting a projectile into a target. Guns are very very good for that sort of thing. I actually joined a rifle team at Yale for a bit (you can imagine, it's not the sort of place where guns are popular among the students), and I've always been meaning to go to a firing range to shoot at targets. I think it's enjoyable, pure and simple.

However, I do not own a gun, and probably will never own a gun to keep in the house, unless I moved to a rural area. I live in Manhattan and/or Long Island, and I feel that no one really needs a gun in these parts to protect themselves. In more isolated areas, where you cannot depend on anyone, I can sort of see the need for a gun as protection, but in the Upper West Side, I can't imagine a gun being useful. If you are getting mugged, you probably don't have it with you. No one really breaks into your house while you are there, and there isn't enough time to put the combination into the safe, load the gun, release the safety, etc. So unless you're hoping for a riot and you want to be part of it, I just don't see the point.

Call me elitist, but I really don't trust people with guns, mainly because they're not me. As I've alluded to before, if you're keeping the gun in a way that's absolutely safe from children and others who may enter your premises, it renders their protection function pretty useless. If you're keeping it around loaded and within grasp, it's most likely to be too dangerous for my comfort. People with guns may discharge it; I'd rather prefer it if no one around me has that option because I just don't trust the multiple ways in which a person who intends to keep it safe cannot do so.

That was a bit ramble-y, so to wrap up, I think guns are fun, but it's rather useless as a mode of protection in a large city. But I don't see anything wrong with people using it in healthy ways, like at a shooting range.


----------



## ChubbyTiger

> quote:If you are getting mugged, you probably don't have it with you. No one really breaks into your house while you are there...


I think that's exactly the point. In Texas or Florida, you may well have a gun with you - thus the mugger has to consider the possibly fatal consequences of his actions. Ditto about burglary. In Britain, a much higher percentage of break-ins occur whilest the resident is at home, probably due to the fact that the burglar can be pretty sure that he won't get shot in the process. Not so in the USA.

And honestly, the main role of the police is not to protect us from crime. It's to find the criminal and arrest him _after_ the crime has been committed. Thus, I feel that it's incumbant upon us to prevent crimes from being committed against our ourselves.

CT


----------



## Earthmover

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:If you are getting mugged, you probably don't have it with you. No one really breaks into your house while you are there...
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's exactly the point. In Texas or Florida, you may well have a gun with you - thus the mugger has to consider the possibly fatal consequences of his actions. Ditto about burglary. In Britain, a much higher percentage of break-ins occur whilest the resident is at home, probably due to the fact that the burglar can be pretty sure that he won't get shot in the process. Not so in the USA.
Click to expand...

This is true; I guess I didn't really consider the full ramifications of the deterrent issue. I don't think what you say is categorically true, but I think that's a big part of why US has more burglaries than robberies in residences.



> quote:And honestly, the main role of the police is not to protect us from crime. It's to find the criminal and arrest him _after_ the crime has been committed. Thus, I feel that it's incumbant upon us to prevent crimes from being committed against our ourselves.


I think that is slightly logically inconsistent with your first statement. If the possibility of any random person having a gun serves as a blanket deterrent, why not the possibility of getting caught? Both are adverse consequences. So like carrying guns may actually reduce violent crimes in the home (I think this point is in need of detailed analysis, actually. I'm not quite sold), police finding criminals will reduce crime itself. Besides, like in Minority Report (the movie), if they could prevent crimes with absolute certainty, maybe the police would have chosen to do so.

I still don't trust most people with guns, though. Of course, I don't trust most people with driving, but I have to live with that.


----------



## crazyquik

> quote:_Originally posted by Earthmover_
> 
> 
> 
> quote:And honestly, the main role of the police is not to protect us from crime. It's to find the criminal and arrest him _after_ the crime has been committed. Thus, I feel that it's incumbant upon us to prevent crimes from being committed against our ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is slightly logically inconsistent with your first statement.
Click to expand...

I think he is trying to point out that there are reams of court rulings that say the police have no obligation to protect you, as an individual. They are only obligated to come by after the crime has occured and clean up, collect facts, etc.

Thier obligation is to the public safety, not an individual's safety and protection. So if you dial 911 and then get killed, and the police arrive 15 minutes later, your estate can't sue the police department for not protecting you. That's not thier job.

With the knowledge that the police have no responsibility to protect you, you can either go defenseless or defend yourself. The options are to hire your own safety (like a celebrity or VIP) or to buy a gun and be your own safety.


----------



## Oswald Cornelius

> quote:_Originally posted by TimmyMac_
> 
> Benelli Super Black Eagle 3" chamber in 12ga. Best shotgun I have ever owned, period.
> 
> Beretta SO5 Skeet 2-3/4" chamber in 12ga.


No, the SO is a better gun.


----------



## Patrick06790

Plinking cans with a .22 as a kid. Yessir.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Earthmover_
> 
> 
> 
> quote:And honestly, the main role of the police is not to protect us from crime. It's to find the criminal and arrest him _after_ the crime has been committed. Thus, I feel that it's incumbant upon us to prevent crimes from being committed against our ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is slightly logically inconsistent with your first statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think he is trying to point out that there are reams of court rulings that say the police have no obligation to protect you, as an individual. They are only obligated to come by after the crime has occured and clean up, collect facts, etc.
> 
> Thier obligation is to the public safety, not an individual's safety and protection. So if you dial 911 and then get killed, and the police arrive 15 minutes later, your estate can't sue the police department for not protecting you. That's not thier job.
> 
> With the knowledge that the police have no responsibility to protect you, you can either go defenseless or defend yourself. The options are to hire your own safety (like a celebrity or VIP) or to buy a gun and be your own safety.
Click to expand...

two points:

1. it is much more likly that somebody in your house will die or a heart attack than be killed in a home invasion. having a defibrilator in the house is the single best way to save somebody who has had a heart attack. a defibrilator is about the same cost as a handgun, is about as easy to use, is much safer to have around children. how many of you, who have guns in the house for protection, have defibrilators? rationally speaking, it seems that if you are so interested in protecting your family, you would first get a defibrilator, and then a gun. this leads me to believe that saving lives is not the first issue - after all, a defibrilator isn't cool, and you can't show it to friends when they come by.

2. I would suggest that, as an overall strategy, having a firearm in the house isn't the best form of defense. first, you should have any firearms locked up and kept seperate from their ammunition, making it harder to get them ready to fire. secondly, if you haven't worked out a plan for how you want to defend your house, and how you want your family to react, the chances of your being effecive in the middle of the night, and not kiling a family member, are pretty slight. thirdly, are you sure that you are keeping your shooting skills up, and that you will be awake and clear headed enough to confront somebody who has been awake, and is pumped up with adrenaline, at 3 am? lastly, the gun in the house has aded risk factors, adding dangers of accidents and theft of the gun to the equation.
I keep 2 large ( the size of fire extinguishers) canisters of CS gas/pepper spray mixture in my house - one by my bed, one by my front door (I also have a small one in the car, and one I carry). I have 2 night sticks, as well. my house is set up, so that should somebody come in the front door in the middle of the night, I will send out a huge fog of gas, grab the family and get out of the house. the bad guys are welcome to anything that they want from the house, once my family is out of the equation. I don't have to worry about my son touching the gas or night stick, because it can't kill him easily- if he gives himself a jolt of cs gas, he won't do it again. 
hopefully, I will never have to deal with any type of home invasion scenario. in the county where I live it is almost unhear of. If I do, I should be able to get through it with nobody losing their lives, and without have to replace big chunks of dry wall and carpet because I shot somebody.


----------



## ChubbyTiger

> quote:it is much more likly that somebody in your house will die or a heart attack than be killed in a home invasion.


I don't know the stats, but I imagine that your absolutely correct. A workable home defense (w/ or w/o a firearm) is mostly to protect the occupants' lives, but it will also serve to protect both their virtue and any material goods you may have. Also, you have to admit that home defibrilators are a very new thing. As to their effectiveness, I'll leave it to the MDs in the crowd to assess.

Just to mention the night stick, you have touched on the exact benefit of firearms as opposed to other weapon types. A night stick takes some degree of strength and skill to use. A 90 year old woman is unlikely to be capable of using a night stick to defend herself. Heck, I'm unlikely to be able to use a night stick to defend myself - I am totally untrained in the use of weapons for hand-to-hand combat. A handgun can be used by almost anyone, allowing our hypothetical 90 year old to defend herself from an attacker. Just a thought.

CT


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) .... (firearms) is mostly to protect the occupants' lives, but it will also serve to protect both their virtue and any material goods you may have.
> 
> Just to mention the night stick, you have touched on the exact benefit of firearms as opposed to other weapon types. A night stick takes some degree of strength and skill to use. A 90 year old woman is unlikely to be capable of using a night stick to defend herself. Heck, I'm unlikely to be able to use a night stick to defend myself - I am totally untrained in the use of weapons for hand-to-hand combat. A handgun can be used by almost anyone, allowing our hypothetical 90 year old to defend herself from an attacker. Just a thought.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> as to the first point - I don't care about my virtue or my possetions - I have insurance and self estime - I would rather that all parties walked away from this conflict, or had the option of walking away, and I would rather know that I would lose a few possetions, but keep to minimal the chance of my son killing himself accidententily.
> 
> second point - thank you very much, this is an excellent point for two reasons. first, I would rather have something in my house that is not easy to use as a weapon, that you need to know how to use it. I don't want the bad guy using my weapon against me, and I don't want some idiot stealing my weapon and using it against some third party.
> 
> also, think for one second about what you wrote (thank you again, sir, for the set up)- do you really want something around the house that makes it that easy to kill with? if home defence is so important, why not take a little time and learn how to use a "more difficult" weapon? for that matter, if one can't be bothered to learn how to use a night stick, how well will he learn how to use a firearm?
Click to expand...


----------



## bosthist

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) .... (firearms) is mostly to protect the occupants' lives, but it will also serve to protect both their virtue and any material goods you may have.
> 
> Just to mention the night stick, you have touched on the exact benefit of firearms as opposed to other weapon types. A night stick takes some degree of strength and skill to use. A 90 year old woman is unlikely to be capable of using a night stick to defend herself. Heck, I'm unlikely to be able to use a night stick to defend myself - I am totally untrained in the use of weapons for hand-to-hand combat. A handgun can be used by almost anyone, allowing our hypothetical 90 year old to defend herself from an attacker. Just a thought.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want the bad guy using my weapon against me, and I don't want some idiot stealing my weapon and using it against some third party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am in complete agreement with globetrotter. Two close friends of mine were murdered with a gun stolen in Washington state that made its way to Iowa. The owner of the gun had left the gun unsecured and it was stolen by someone who knew his daughter and had heard the guy talk about having a gun in the house.
> 
> As to the chances that you're actually going to use your gun to shoot an intruder: criminals almost always wait until no one is home to break into a house. They're not concerned about owners with guns, they're concerned with the house being occupied and will watch your house until you leave. The best deterrent to having your house robbed is never to leave your house or to have a good alarm system.
> 
> Furthermore, given the choice of waking up at 3 A.M. upon hearing a strange noise, turning on the lights, going to the gun safe, getting out the gun, finding the ammunition, and loading the gun versus picking up a police baton, I will take the police baton every time.
Click to expand...


----------



## JLibourel

I am extremely conscientious about securing my guns when I am not around. However, when I go to sleep, a .45 goes with me. My 128-pound Japanese Fighting Dog, who doesn't cotton too much to strangers and sleeps on my bed, adds to my sense of security. 

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this previously, but one reason that invasions of occupied homes by criminals is very uncommon in the United States is the common knowledge among the bad guys that they are very likely to catch a bullet for their efforts, give that about 40% of American households do own guns. In countries with strict gun control, invasions of occupied homes are far more common since would-be intruders don't have this to worry about.

I will concede that a great many people live long and peaceful existences without ever needing a gun. However, sometimes they do come in handy. I can recall, back when I was living a tough part of LA, my neighbor waking me up screaming my name as someone tried to break into her apartment. The fact that I could scarf up a Smith & Wesson Military & Police allowed me to rush to rescue immediately, by which time the bad guy had decamped. It certainly seemed much preferable to cowering in my apartment and dialing 911 while worrying about what hellishness some fiend might be inflicting on my poor neighbor (who was a very decent, orderly woman--the intruder was certainly not some disgruntled ex-boyfriend or anything like that).


----------



## ChubbyTiger

> quote:also, think for one second about what you wrote (thank you again, sir, for the set up)- do you really want something around the house that makes it that easy to kill with? if home defence is so important, why not take a little time and learn how to use a "more difficult" weapon? for that matter, if one can't be bothered to learn how to use a night stick, how well will he learn how to use a firearm?


Um. That's the whole point, isn't it? Firearms took the ability to defend yourself from the realm of the nobility (those with the time, money, and strength to dedicate to training) to the peons (us). Once upon a time, only the strong, young, and rich could learn how to use a sword well. Guns let _everyone_, not just those who can swing a stick really hard, defend themselves.

And to use your rationale, the only acceptable training would be unarmed combat, which is definately not something that everyone can do. An enemy can never use my fists and feet against me. Of course, if he has a knife or a gun I'm screwed.

Lastly, as far as I'm concerned, if someone breaks into my house, he is de facto threatening my life. I don't care if his intent is only to steal my TV, his mere presence is a threat to myself and those who I should protect. Bugger him.

CT


----------



## globetrotter

[quote
Um. That's the whole point, isn't it? Firearms took the ability to defend yourself from the realm of the nobility (those with the time, money, and strength to dedicate to training) to the peons (us). Once upon a time, only the strong, young, and rich could learn how to use a sword well. Guns let _everyone_, not just those who can swing a stick really hard, defend themselves.

And to use your rationale, the only acceptable training would be unarmed combat, which is definately not something that everyone can do. An enemy can never use my fists and feet against me. Of course, if he has a knife or a gun I'm screwed.

Lastly, as far as I'm concerned, if someone breaks into my house, he is de facto threatening my life. I don't care if his intent is only to steal my TV, his mere presence is a threat to myself and those who I should protect. Bugger him.

CT
[/quote]

good points - I want to clarify my motives - it is my belief that a weapon is more dangerous to those it is not intended to harm, when it is in a civillian enviroment - so having a weapon that is no more leathal than a rolling pin if you don't know how to use it fits my purposes perfectly. I want to make sure that the only person who is hurt is one who I really and truly want hurt, and not somebody who is killed in the heat of a lovers spat or a childrens game.

second, about killing - I have the had the experience of both having hit people with a stick and shooting at people. I have no problem with taking a life of somebody who is threatening my self, my family, and my things, but I would rather not. I would rather send a bad guy to jail with a couple of shattered knees than send him to the morgue, if I can avoid it comfortably. I have no possetions that I wouldn't trade for the possiblity of not killing somebody. in addition, and not entirly a minor matter - firing a weapon at a man, in a house with dry wall and wall to wall carpet means you will be faced with a huge mess.

for me, looking at the risk assesment rationally, it seems that a firearm is not a good investment in terms on its return - the security offered.

JL - you sir, are a proffetional, and, like some of the people who have posted here, have taken the time and energy to know how to handle and secure your weapons. I am also assuming that you live alone, or at least without kids. I do not doubt that your system is as good, if not better, than mine, it is those who have no system except for a handgun stuffed under the pillow that I am not so sure about.


----------



## ChubbyTiger

I agree with point 2. On point 1, I think that it's just a matter of point of view. I agree to the extent that it's possible, I suppose. 

OTOH, this is one reason I enjoy martial arts training. And do not own a fire arm. Go figure.

CT


----------



## FlatSix

As a one-time firearms collector, I think I can address something which has not been discussed.

A good firearm is a satisfying machine. It is well-made. Operating one is a pleasure in the same way that operating a fine stereo system, a proper tool, or an outstandingly competent automobile is. And they are satisfying in different ways. A Glock can be broken down to its 33 (or 34) component parts within two minutes and reassembled in a similar length of time. A Colt Gold Cup in stainless steel has the tactile quality of a fine watch.

A firearm may have historical value. I have owned firearms which stood guard at the Berlin Wall. I have owned firearms which traveled the world. I have a Mauser rifle made in 1896 which still operates with clinical accuracy, more than a hundred years later. The history of the modern world is the history of firearms. 

A firearm can be a bridge to experiences. I spent an afternoon once learning how to shoot a 1917 Enfield rifle from a man who had carried one in the Greek Civil War. While he forcefully corrected my rapid bolt method, we talked about what it was like to fight in that conflict. Not something you'll read in a history book. 

I no longer use a firearm for self-defense; I have a pair of machetes by the bed for that. Anyone who comes in the house will wish he had been shot. Regrettably, I am no stranger to inflicting personal injury.

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


"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## FlatSix

> quote: I would rather send a bad guy to jail with a couple of shattered knees than send him to the morgue, if I can avoid it comfortably. I have no possetions that I wouldn't trade for the possiblity of not killing somebody.


It will only take one personal injury lawsuit to change your mind on that score. It only took one for me.

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

"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> As a one-time firearms collector, I think I can address something which has not been discussed.
> 
> A good firearm is a satisfying machine. It is well-made. Operating one is a pleasure in the same way that operating a fine stereo system, a proper tool, or an outstandingly competent automobile is. And they are satisfying in different ways. A Glock can be broken down to its 33 (or 34) component parts within two minutes and reassembled in a similar length of time. A Colt Gold Cup in stainless steel has the tactile quality of a fine watch.
> 
> A firearm may have historical value. I have owned firearms which stood guard at the Berlin Wall. I have owned firearms which traveled the world. I have a Mauser rifle made in 1896 which still operates with clinical accuracy, more than a hundred years later. The history of the modern world is the history of firearms.
> 
> A firearm can be a bridge to experiences. I spent an afternoon once learning how to shoot a 1917 Enfield rifle from a man who had carried one in the Greek Civil War. While he forcefully corrected my rapid bolt method, we talked about what it was like to fight in that conflict. Not something you'll read in a history book.
> 
> I no longer use a firearm for self-defense; I have a pair of machetes by the bed for that. Anyone who comes in the house will wish he had been shot. Regrettably, I am no stranger to inflicting personal injury.


I understand this position - I do not like it. firearms are, to me, tools for killing people. I find something incorrect in the collecting, or the enjoyment of guns for the sake of guns. again, this gets back to my two main objections - first, it strikes me as something that is beneth a grown man to do - to play with guns. secondly, because this is a toy that can cause harm to the wrong people - by playing with firearms, you are creating a situation that could cause harm to people, should the firearms fall into the wrong hands.

part of my trouble is that I have been a relativly hard man, in my day, and I have had friends who were exceptionaly hard men. it would never have dawned on any of us to play with guns - I am sorry to use such a dismisive term, but that is what we are talking about. I don't know anybody who I respect who collects guns, I am not saying that I couldn't respect a gun colector, just that I haven't. and of the half dozen colonels and the 50 or so infantry sargents, and the dozen or so members of the security forces who attended my wedding, not one of them has a firearm that is part of a "collection", and as far as I know, none of them would think of it.


----------



## FlatSix

> quote:I understand this position - I do not like it. firearms are, to me, tools for killing people.


That's a valid position informed by your experience. To others, firearms are tools for eating their next meal. To yet others, firearms are the reason they are still alive today. Ask anybody whose parents were killed by animals, perhaps in another country or under different circumstances, how they feel about taking children to the zoo to see the lions. Ask Jacques Villeneuve how he feels about lining up on a Formula One grid knowing his father died doing the same thing. Our opinions are all informed by our experiences.



> quote:I find something incorrect in the collecting, or the enjoyment of guns for the sake of guns. again, this gets back to my two main objections - first, it strikes me as something that is beneth a grown man to do - to play with guns. secondly, because this is a toy that can cause harm to the wrong people - by playing with firearms, you are creating a situation that could cause harm to people, should the firearms fall into the wrong hands.


Statistically, cars kill far more people than guns in the United States. But I will cheerfully fire up my 911 and exercise it on the freeway tomorrow, knowing I may kill a family before I finish that day, or cause who knows what mayhem. If we took actions based on the worst possible consequences, none of us would leave our beds.



> quoteart of my trouble is that I have been a relativly hard man, in my day, and I have had friends who were exceptionaly hard men. it would never have dawned on any of us to play with guns - I am sorry to use such a dismisive term, but that is what we are talking about.


And I know plenty of men who killed more than their share of people and have an unquenchable zest for firearms collection. Perhaps they are better at separating the tool from the intent, or perhaps they are worse.



> quote: I don't know anybody who I respect who collects guns, I am not saying that I couldn't respect a gun colector, just that I haven't. and of the half dozen colonels and the 50 or so infantry sargents, and the dozen or so members of the security forces who attended my wedding, not one of them has a firearm that is part of a "collection", and as far as I know, none of them would think of it.


Nor do many garbagemen collect miniature garbage trucks, I suspect. But all you are saying is that firearms are bound up in your mind with unpleasantries, and that your friends choose not to take their work home with them.

This is not uncommon. Many men find what they do for a living annoying enough that they choose not to pursue it outside work hours. Incidentally, this is why most cops are lousy shots.

You are investing firearms with powers which really only exist in your mind and in the minds of others. The highest-profile mass killing in the past decade involved no firearms at all - nothing more complicated than a box cutter. Machines are only the servants of our desires and imaginations. You cannot place the darkness of your heart into an inanimate object and think you have left it behind to be collected by people whom you despise.

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

"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## Oswald Cornelius

Globetrotter,

I've never been around harder men than the men in the US spec ops units. (I realize there are 'hard' men and units in other countries-- so no need to debate here who's 'harder.') I've also not spent time around men who enjoy 'playing' with weapons more than these guys. Or guys who are better at it. They downright enjoy shooting. They love it. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's a big part of why they do what they do. Some of them own a bunch of guns*. Some of them collect guns. Some refer to their guns as 'a collection.' 

I, personally, prefer fine bird guns over military style weapons. I own a few shotguns, although I don't consider myself a 'collector.' Not that there's anything wrong with collecting, it's just that I've done enough of it to know there's no percentage in it--but I probably do it wrong. I consider fine guns on par with fine mechanical or automatic watches--functional artwork of the top tier. Hardly anything comes close--maybe certain automobiles (like MY 911)or certain musical instruments. But the cool thing about a nice shotgun is you get to go hunting with it. Which I should be doing tomorrow, but alas... Enjoy your weekend--it's always interesting to hear differing opinions....

* "gun" used in the sense of "firearm," here.


----------



## Kav

Recent estimates place the ratio of small arms to people worldwide at 1-7. It is obscene children in Africa are impressed into militias and given RPGs and AK47s taller than they can hope to grow in their stolen lives.Former Warsaw pact countries joining NATO are rearming with western weaponry while their own citizens still suffer deprivation. The sitting action hero governor of Caleeforneea signed .50 caliber rifles into assault rifles. The civilians who developed the precision loads used by coalition forces in Afghanistan are now potential bad guys without even benefit of a special effects artist. Fireams are here people, and if you doubt this loan me $5 and a cartridge of your choice, drive me to the hardware store and I will make one for you in situ. As such, any reasonable person should at least be acquainted with their safe handling and potential for both physical and litigous destruction. We drownproof our children against the latent threat of swimming pools and make a mystery of firearms, and we should know the attraction of youth to taboos and forbidden fruits. Firearm possession was once actually a LIBERAL postion in this nation. Liberal or conservative trappings aside, it comes down to elitism to say Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden or the governor can have firearms but somehow everyone else is suspect of ethical and practical possession. It's called instruction, and should you choose," The right to Bear Arms' or just as valid " The right not to Bear Arms" in a secure society: everyone should know which end means HURT at least.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:I understand this position - I do not like it. firearms are, to me, tools for killing people.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a valid position informed by your experience. To others, firearms are tools for eating their next meal. To yet others, firearms are the reason they are still alive today. Ask anybody whose parents were killed by animals, perhaps in another country or under different circumstances, how they feel about taking children to the zoo to see the lions. Ask Jacques Villeneuve how he feels about lining up on a Formula One grid knowing his father died doing the same thing. Our opinions are all informed by our experiences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:I find something incorrect in the collecting, or the enjoyment of guns for the sake of guns. again, this gets back to my two main objections - first, it strikes me as something that is beneth a grown man to do - to play with guns. secondly, because this is a toy that can cause harm to the wrong people - by playing with firearms, you are creating a situation that could cause harm to people, should the firearms fall into the wrong hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statistically, cars kill far more people than guns in the United States. But I will cheerfully fire up my 911 and exercise it on the freeway tomorrow, knowing I may kill a family before I finish that day, or cause who knows what mayhem. If we took actions based on the worst possible consequences, none of us would leave our beds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quoteart of my trouble is that I have been a relativly hard man, in my day, and I have had friends who were exceptionaly hard men. it would never have dawned on any of us to play with guns - I am sorry to use such a dismisive term, but that is what we are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I know plenty of men who killed more than their share of people and have an unquenchable zest for firearms collection. Perhaps they are better at separating the tool from the intent, or perhaps they are worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote: I don't know anybody who I respect who collects guns, I am not saying that I couldn't respect a gun colector, just that I haven't. and of the half dozen colonels and the 50 or so infantry sargents, and the dozen or so members of the security forces who attended my wedding, not one of them has a firearm that is part of a "collection", and as far as I know, none of them would think of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor do many garbagemen collect miniature garbage trucks, I suspect. But all you are saying is that firearms are bound up in your mind with unpleasantries, and that your friends choose not to take their work home with them.
> 
> This is not uncommon. Many men find what they do for a living annoying enough that they choose not to pursue it outside work hours. Incidentally, this is why most cops are lousy shots.
> 
> You are investing firearms with powers which really only exist in your mind and in the minds of others. The highest-profile mass killing in the past decade involved no firearms at all - nothing more complicated than a box cutter. Machines are only the servants of our desires and imaginations. You cannot place the darkness of your heart into an inanimate object and think you have left it behind to be collected by people whom you despise.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> "When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff
> 
> "First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia
> 
> " I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790
Click to expand...

all very valid points - you may have noticed that I am not fantaicaly against guns, I am very much in favor of education and in favor of protection the right to keep and bear arms. I also do not beleive that anyone has to share my aesthetics - I guess it is a lot like the trad/non trad debates. have a nice weekend. (I have, by the way, patterned a lot of my personal style on Babar)


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Oswald Cornelius_
> 
> Globetrotter,
> 
> I've never been around harder men than the men in the US spec ops units. (I realize there are 'hard' men and units in other countries-- so no need to debate here who's 'harder.') I've also not spent time around men who enjoy 'playing' with weapons more than these guys. Or guys who are better at it. They downright enjoy shooting. They love it. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's a big part of why they do what they do. Some of them own a bunch of guns*. Some of them collect guns. Some refer to their guns as 'a collection.'
> 
> I, personally, prefer fine bird guns over military style weapons. I own a few shotguns, although I don't consider myself a 'collector.' Not that there's anything wrong with collecting, it's just that I've done enough of it to know there's no percentage in it--but I probably do it wrong. I consider fine guns on par with fine mechanical or automatic watches--functional artwork of the top tier. Hardly anything comes close--maybe certain automobiles (like MY 911)or certain musical instruments. But the cool thing about a nice shotgun is you get to go hunting with it. Which I should be doing tomorrow, but alas... Enjoy your weekend--it's always interesting to hear differing opinions....
> 
> * "gun" used in the sense of "firearm," here.


I think this comes down more to aesthetics, which is always a cultural issue, than to ethics, which is also cultural but gets people a lot more heated.

have nice weekend - and frankly if I knew somebody who I trusted enough to walk next to with a shotgun, and you was interested in it. I would be happy to go out and shoot at birds for the table. I am not a fanatic about my beliefs.


----------



## mark6016

While not a particular fan of handguns I appreciate the protection my S&W Mod.10 provides both as a civilian and while on the job. Thankfully the "show of metal" has been enough to ward off immediate threats without having to resort to further action. I keep my shooting skills up to date and fully understand the destructive power a handgun can have. If I'm in a low-risk environment then I'm satisfied to keep it locked up at the office. Thankfully I don't have to worry about any children at home accidentally coming across it.


----------



## crazyquik

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> again, this gets back to my two main objections - first, it strikes me as something that is beneth a grown man to do - to play with guns.


It's interesting that you think this way. Makes me wonder how many others share this view, because it's not one that I've ever heard before.

Historically this sort of thing was the _manliest_ thing a grown man could do. Hunting, defending your family, or taking up arms in defense of God, and country. If it wasn't then Hemingway would have been writing about something else.

I suppose that is just your personal expirience.

To others (including me) it seems immature for someone to be afraid of weapons. To us they are good for having just like dogs, coats, saws, boots, and fire extinguishers.

My home is insured against fire. But I still have a fire extinguisher 6 feet from the stove so I don't have to wait on the fire department.


----------



## Rich

> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> again, this gets back to my two main objections - first, it strikes me as something that is beneth a grown man to do - to play with guns.
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you think this way. Makes me wonder how many others share this view, because it's not one that I've ever heard before.
> 
> Historically this sort of thing was the _manliest_ thing a grown man could do. Hunting, defending your family, or taking up arms in defense of God, and country. If it wasn't then Hemingway would have been writing about something else.
> 
> I suppose that is just your personal expirience.
> 
> To others (including me) it seems immature for someone to be afraid of weapons. To us they are good for having just like dogs, coats, saws, boots, and fire extinguishers.
> 
> My home is insured against fire. But I still have a fire extinguisher 6 feet from the stove so I don't have to wait on the fire department.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between playing with guns and using a gun for a practical purpose. Fascination with guns, which is the topic, is childish - or pathological when extreme. Fascination with fire extinguishers would be too. Some people are fascinated with guns because owning them gives a feeling of power, just like a kid will pretend to be an all-powerful superhero with a few mome-made props. They also give actual power - to kill someone. A lot of people, men especially, find that exciting (thinking about it, that is). Occasionally someone acts out his fantasy... There are some weird people about. Also, is mass gun ownership really necessary for personal protection? Is owning a firearm a practical necessity?
I find handgun enthusiasts (as distinct from sporting rifle and shotgun people) a strange crowd, personally.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> again, this gets back to my two main objections - first, it strikes me as something that is beneth a grown man to do - to play with guns.
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you think this way. Makes me wonder how many others share this view, because it's not one that I've ever heard before.
> 
> Historically this sort of thing was the _manliest_ thing a grown man could do. Hunting, defending your family, or taking up arms in defense of God, and country. If it wasn't then Hemingway would have been writing about something else.
> 
> I suppose that is just your personal expirience.
> 
> To others (including me) it seems immature for someone to be afraid of weapons. To us they are good for having just like dogs, coats, saws, boots, and fire extinguishers.
> 
> My home is insured against fire. But I still have a fire extinguisher 6 feet from the stove so I don't have to wait on the fire department.
Click to expand...

yes, I agree, being a profetional gunman is about the manliest thing that you can do. pretending to be one is not.

let me ask you this - did you serve in an infantry unit of the armed forces? if not, why not? if it is so manly, why didn't you? in the US, you can enlist in the national guard until you are, I believe, 45. you may still have time.

if you bring in 50%, or 30% or 20% of your families caloric intake by hunting, I take my hat off to you. I don't know many people who do, today. again, being a hunter is masculine, pretending to be one is not.

to me, it comes down to the same issue as wearing cowboy boots and bomber jackets, regimental ties, etc, only worse, because you are putting additional people at risk.


----------



## JLibourel

Globetrotter, in one of your earliest posts on this thread, you make the comment, "Firearms are, to me, tools for killing people." Several years ago I blew about the price of a Savile Row suit on a nice "bespoke" (made to my measurements and specifications) Spanish side-by-side shotgun. (I got an industry insider discount; otherwise it would have been considerably more.) When I got this lovely sporting instrument, it never really occurred to me to think, "Wow, I could really use this to blow away any scumbag who tries to get in my house!" (In point of fact, I had more efficient instruments for that job, anyway!) An analogy might be that if I got a lovely pair of bespoke Edward Greens, the thought that they would be useful for stomping someone into insensibility or worse would hardly be uppermost in my mind! However, I gather that in the UK in particular, at least in past decades, certain styles of heavy steel-toed boots were favored by skinheads and similar ruffians for kicking and stomping. The "steel-rimmed cycle boot" had a similar vogue among my adolescent contemporaries in the 1950s for the same reasons. Nonetheless, that would hardly lead me to regard all footgear, not even heavy logger or construction boots, as primarily anti-personnel weapons.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> Globetrotter, in one of your earliest posts on this thread, you make the comment, "Firearms are, to me, tools for killing people." Several years ago I blew about the price of a Savile Row suit on a nice "bespoke" (made to my measurements and specifications) Spanish side-by-side shotgun. (I got an industry insider discount; otherwise it would have been considerably more.) When I got this lovely sporting instrument, it never really occurred to me to think, "Wow, I could really use this to blow away any scumbag who tries to get in my house!" (In point of fact, I had more efficient instruments for that job, anyway!) An analogy might be that if I got a lovely pair of bespoke Edward Greens, the thought that they would be useful for stomping someone into insensibility or worse would hardly be uppermost in my mind! However, I gather that in the UK in particular, at least in past decades, certain styles of heavy steel-toed boots were favored by skinheads and similar ruffians for kicking and stomping. The "steel-rimmed cycle boot" had a similar vogue among my adolescent contemporaries in the 1950s for the same reasons. Nonetheless, that would hardly lead me to regard all footgear, not even heavy logger or construction boots, as primarily anti-personnel weapons.


Jlibourel, Sir,

I have a great respect for you, and I understand that you are proffetionaly in the business, or have been, of firearms. But that is really not a very good analogy. actually, the oposite would be the case, if a very afluent skinhead were to buy a pair of bespoke boots from lobb and ask to have steel toes put in to kick people, that would be the equivelent of purchasing a very well decorated and artistic firearm - changing the nature of the object to fit your personal tastes.

I certainly agree that firearms can have beuty and be artistic. I can apprectiate the art of a well made hunting firearm. but don't try to blow smoke up my postereor with that kind of argument, please.

now, I would never presume to suggest to you how you should handle your firearms, but when I touch a firearm, the first thought that I have, and one that reaccurs every few seconds on a subconsious level is, "this could kill somebody, please be careful". and that is a good thing. I think that too many people get taken in by the beuty of a well made firearm and forget that.

I had dropped this thread a while back, intill crazyquick brought up the subject again, but I am very much of the belief that firearms are not toys, and that the vast majoirty of american men use them as such.


----------



## JLibourel

Well, Globetrotter, if we are going to continue with these analogies, I think it could be fairly argued that that a huge percentage of firearms--most sporting and target arms--are to killing people as opera pumps are to stomping an adversary. Yes, they can be used, but they are hardly first-choice equipment for the job. 

As to your comment that you reflect upon picking up any firearm you handle that it could kill somebody, that is indeed a salutary attitude that everyone who handles a gun should do well to emulate. Much the same meditations should be in order whenever we turn the ignition keys in our cars.

As to your comment that most American men view guns as "toys," if you mean that in the broad sense as "sporting and recreational equipment," I'll agree with you and thank God for that fact. It will be a grim and cold day in America when the majority of firearms are sold as anti-personnel weapons rather than for wholesome outdoor recreation.


----------



## Kav

I have a faint wound in my left thigh from a ricocheted AK47 round and a birdshot pellet still in my right ring fingertip from drug smugglers. My right wrist bears an almost now invisible scar from a knife wielding PCP crazed boater. The famed 1911A1 resolved the first two issues. Ironically, the third involved stopping the crazed boater by my rather unorthodox use of a Remington Enfield linethrowing rifle to scare him off the bridge with a bronze line wieght and then ramming him with my ancient 36' motorlifeboat at a blinding 6 knots. I had never handled a firearm until the gunner's mate handed me an M16 for qualification in Basic. I was, and proudly still clumsily labeled a liberal. From my rather unique viewpoint and academic background above the stale fart rhetoric of " cold dead hands" and the plaintive " guns are only meant for one thing, killing" I have a third view. If you want me to disarm, post a bond to cover any and all unforseen social consequences of such a society against my life,liberty and pursuit of happiness. I'd personally LOVE a society that wakes up to Disney's "It's a small world Afterall" and conducts itself with the artistry of the japanese tea ceremony. If you can create it by removing firearms fine, untill then the bond amopunt required is 1 billion with a B USD and 23 cents. Until then I will keep my options open.


----------



## marc_au

l was hoping this topic would come up again.

l belong to a long line of hunting men. All the men in my family were hunters for generations. So were l when l was young. l am now anti killing of animals because l am a sproutarian (vegan).

l love guns. While they are not toys, they are certainly good fun. l love the power that guns have. l love shooting things.

My old man used to take me out to the country to go hunting. l remember firing my old Mosburg shot gun, it had one hell of a kick, used to leave bruises on my shoulder. When l shot (one piece) brenic bullets from the shotgun l could blow a tree to pieces or in half. l have shot wild Pigs heads clean off with that shotgun.

l also love my old 210 Boar war riffle to. l also love my old WW1 303 and my 250 (303-25) rifle. Great guns, good for shooting Kangaroos. Used to have an altered 22 automatic rifle but l got rid of it.

l've always wanted a pistol and a double barrel shotgun too. My old man had a pistol but he got rid of it years ago. He used to keep it under the seat of his car in case of road rage. Actually, that's why l want one too....the roads are so dangerous with all these maniacs, l wouldn't mind keeping an empty pistol under the seat of my car too. Been thinking about it for a very long time.

l would like to wear a pistol under my clothes when l go out at night but if l got caught l could get into alot of trouble, that's why l hesitate about getting a pistol. But, l would rather be armed than vunerable to a pack of violent idiots on the street. lf someone robs my house or attacks me on the street, l would rather put a bullet in there foot than be killed. Unfortunately, with all the desperate violence on our streets, lt is neccessary to protect ourselves. lt's unfortunate that people have to go to those lengths but it is neccessary.

*GR8MAN (The shooman) B8MAN.

*


----------



## Kav

I was young and good looking, serving in the Alaska of Jack London on Kodiak. As a legal resident I drew a tag for a brownie. It couldn't get much better. The government provided my housing, the base recreation officer a boston whaler and the firearm salesman at Kraft's general store had fitted me out with a mauser .30-06 and 220 grain cartridges. A local hunting guide had an empty 2 days which I filled. We made a quick run through fogged waters to a promising area he knew well. We were even graced with a pod of Orcas. After struggling up wet, marble smooth shale we glassed the area from the hillside. And there was my bear, huge, primal and displaying a rare colour variation roughly described as blue. He was also eating sedge grass. By the time we made our stalk to a rational shooting distance 'My' bear was rolling on his back much like my present cat does when full of the joy of living. I leveled my 98 and settled the thick german post sight just behind his shoulder. I thought of the splendid trophy and showing it off with my recent citations to all the jerks who had worried my high school years in a dreary california town. And I felt some connection to the people who once walked these same valleys with mere spear throwers. Finally I felt most of all a connection with 'My' bear and a terrible need to share our mutual joy in the moment; him rolling and me feeling metal and nerve impulse fuse in one infallible system.No more losing every lousy wrestling match in gymn or getting stood up at the prom. And then I decided 'My' bear was worth more than all that and threw the wing safety back on. My guide understood and actually congratulated me on a very successfull 'hunt.' He also promised to keep clients away from this blue individual. I got to meet Bart the Bear years later. I think he somehow knew I was family. My rifle, ammunition and tags all provided taxes to support wildlife. Not one dollar of Timothy Treadwell's kitch propaganda ever did. I still love above all else fine prewar hunting mausers. Sometimes a gun can get you closer than any old Nikon


----------



## JLibourel

What a nice story, Kav! I have come to dislike the idea of shooting bears (unless the bear forced the issue with me)--altogether too intelligent and too "human" (if I am not sounding silly). I would as soon shoot a gorilla or other anthropoid ape as a bear, as I recently remarked in print.


----------



## globetrotter

jl,

what I meant by toys is pretty well demonstrated by marc's and Kav's posts. 

Kav, a gentleman and an adult, decides that he doesn't really need to kill the bear to feel "complete", or to make up for various weaknesses he might have felt over the course of his life. 

Marc, a anti-semitic pissdrinker, thinks it would be cool if he could walk around armed. 


I have no doubt that the world is a dangerous place, and I am by no means a pacifist. I think that most men arm themselves for the wrong reasons, and cannot be trusted to use firearms safly, and would be better off unarmed.


----------



## Acct2000

Kav, when you refer to Bart the Bear, are you talking about the bear who was rescued from the wild and was trained to appear in movies? (There is a story about Bart that appears on Animal Planet every so often.)


----------



## Kav

Yes, I met the Suesse family ( Bart's humans) through a mutual friend and later Bart while on location. I count it one of the most thrilling events of my life. The great shortfaced cavebear of paleolithic Europe is probably the oldest known expression of religosity, with 'alters' of skulls and femurs deliberately locked into the articulated jaws.Many cultures considered bears as other nations of men as they also walked upright. My favourite is the Hopi Kachina 'Han.' He is a white bear that appears at 2 seasonal ceremonies.Han is the ultimate arbitrator. The Hopi mudclowns in their ancient role of balancing even the most solemn ceremonies themselves can get out of control. Then Han steps over and growls. I like to think he growls in my ear sometimes[:I]


----------



## JLibourel

Kav, I think the idea of "altars" of cave bear remains erected by early man was a fancy of earlier cave explorers and palaeontologist. Bjorn Kurten in his book on the cave bear pretty well debunked this. The "altars" were simply the remains of generations of cave bears that had died naturally and were piled on each other.


----------



## Kav

Jan, Thats a great read! I am still openminded ( and romantic ) about the bear's preeminence at some point in that VERY long period of european prehistory. There are even a few medieval references to the french clergy campaigning against people going to caves for " Old heathen and ungodly animal worship." I'm fascinated by a tundra landscape full of reindeer, mammoths, wild horses and bears where Monet later painted his garden. Ideas and traditions, however modified or hardly remembered that survive lost worlds always give me pause.I also prefer Raquel Welch in her fur bikini over Darryl Hanna and Barbara Bach


----------



## Acct2000

That's so cool that you got to meet Bart. I admire the trainer's courage. (I love the bear, but I would be far too aware of the possibility of being seriously hurt or killed if the bear had an angry moment.) Obviously, the trainer has to have courage to gain the bear's respect and trust.

I loved the two specials about Bart.


----------



## Kav

Bears and the canids share an adaptive trait with humans, highly individual personalities. It's not that bears are unpredictable per se, as individuals are.Again, it's like meeting and sizing up people. Bart and his 3 successors were socialized from birth and the Suesses's know bear body language. Honestly, sitting there with a half tonne of Bart was thrilling. They had to control ME more than Bart[:I] I obviously still regard every wild bear as, well wild. I scoured librarys for every available bear study. Not an easy task, most being of the genre WHEN BEARS ATTACK. Actually in our more northern regions more people are attacked by rutting moose.


----------



## Mute

While you may feel that most men arm themselves for the wrong reason and therefore are better off not armed, reality proves otherwise. The U.S. has, I believe, some 40 million gunowners (I don't remember the exact number, it could be larger). Yet every year less than 1% of those firearms are ever used to hurt anyone. That includes, accidents, criminal use and justifiable self-defense. I would say that the instances of people misusing firearms are incredibly low. If we remove the criminal element, those who aren't even allowed by law to own firearms, those numbers would be even smaller.

While you are certainly entitled to your feelings, you should know that it is not based on facts or the truth. Are you then, willing to use your feelings as a guide in determining what others should or should not be allowed to do? If you are, I really question your understanding of liberty and self responsibility.


----------



## JLibourel

In the books I have read about training wild animals, I have always heard that bears are very inscrutable and difficult to read, which makes them much more dangerous and difficult to work with than big cats. (Except for jaguars, which, for whatever reason, are far more dangerous than any other big cats--a woman I know (a highly experienced wild animal trainer)--was almost killed by a jaguar she had raised from a cub. Actually, you might even know her--Alexandra Newman?

I, too, find the Pleistocene fascinating--both its animals and its humans and pre-humans. Never read Jean Auel's novels set in that period, though, but I did see "Clan of the Cave Bear." I felt the movie fell down in that the "Neanderthals" just looked like white boys to me, not as pretty as Darryl Hanna in her prime, but then few of us are! I thought she looked rather piquant with that face painting! Probably the best cave-man movie I ever saw was "Quest for Fire," even if Rae Dawn Chong (although by no means unappealing) is not quite in the same league as Raquel or Darryl.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Mute_
> 
> While you may feel that most men arm themselves for the wrong reason and therefore are better off not armed, reality proves otherwise. The U.S. has, I believe, some 40 million gunowners (I don't remember the exact number, it could be larger). Yet every year less than 1% of those firearms are ever used to hurt anyone. That includes, accidents, criminal use and justifiable self-defense. I would say that the instances of people misusing firearms are incredibly low. If we remove the criminal element, those who aren't even allowed by law to own firearms, those numbers would be even smaller.
> 
> While you are certainly entitled to your feelings, you should know that it is not based on facts or the truth. Are you then, willing to use your feelings as a guide in determining what others should or should not be allowed to do? If you are, I really question your understanding of liberty and self responsibility.


mute, a couple of points:

1. you are lumping together accidents, criminal use and justifiable self defense, that is a pretty clumsy number. the number of times that a person actually successfuly uses a firearm for self defense is dwarfed by the number of people who are hurt by accidents in the US

2. even more important point - I would agree wholeheartidly with the idea of a person having a gun to protect himself and family, if he prepared himself to use it, prepared a plan, thought through the various threats that he might encounter, and planned accordingly. but the bottom line is that almost no american med do that. what they do is go out, buy the biggest, most macho gun they can find, and then go home and get drunk in front of the tv watching dirty harry moveis, and consider that training.

3. the chance of your dyig, or having a family member, die of a hert attack is greater, by 3 or 4 orders of magnitude, than the chance of having somebody come into your house and kill you. you can pretty much drop that chance to zero if you have a $500 defibrillator in your house and/or car. if a person is really thinking, rationally, about dealig with threats, he would be buying a defibrilator, then a fire extinguisher, and then a gun.

4. most important, I do not believe that any civillian can wake up at 3 am, arm himself and do battle with an armed intruder wth any high rate of success. in almost any instance, your overall chance of success will be better with non leathal weapons.

5. considering points 3 and 4, it seems obvious that the only reason american men arm themselves is to feel that they have bigger penuses.

6. I would not suggest that the law be changed to fit my feelings. I simply feel that it is not aesthetic to have a man collect firearms - in the same way I think it silly when I see a new yorker wearing a cowbody hat, only in this case you also have a good chance of killing somebody else by mistake.


----------



## Mute

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Mute_
> 
> While you may feel that most men arm themselves for the wrong reason and therefore are better off not armed, reality proves otherwise. The U.S. has, I believe, some 40 million gunowners (I don't remember the exact number, it could be larger). Yet every year less than 1% of those firearms are ever used to hurt anyone. That includes, accidents, criminal use and justifiable self-defense. I would say that the instances of people misusing firearms are incredibly low. If we remove the criminal element, those who aren't even allowed by law to own firearms, those numbers would be even smaller.
> 
> While you are certainly entitled to your feelings, you should know that it is not based on facts or the truth. Are you then, willing to use your feelings as a guide in determining what others should or should not be allowed to do? If you are, I really question your understanding of liberty and self responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> mute, a couple of points:
> 
> 1. you are lumping together accidents, criminal use and justifiable self defense, that is a pretty clumsy number. the number of times that a person actually successfuly uses a firearm for self defense is dwarfed by the number of people who are hurt by accidents in the US
> 
> 2. even more important point - I would agree wholeheartidly with the idea of a person having a gun to protect himself and family, if he prepared himself to use it, prepared a plan, thought through the various threats that he might encounter, and planned accordingly. but the bottom line is that almost no american med do that. what they do is go out, buy the biggest, most macho gun they can find, and then go home and get drunk in front of the tv watching dirty harry moveis, and consider that training.
> 
> 3. the chance of your dyig, or having a family member, die of a hert attack is greater, by 3 or 4 orders of magnitude, than the chance of having somebody come into your house and kill you. you can pretty much drop that chance to zero if you have a $500 defibrillator in your house and/or car. if a person is really thinking, rationally, about dealig with threats, he would be buying a defibrilator, then a fire extinguisher, and then a gun.
> 
> 4. most important, I do not believe that any civillian can wake up at 3 am, arm himself and do battle with an armed intruder wth any high rate of success. in almost any instance, your overall chance of success will be better with non leathal weapons.
> 
> 5. considering points 3 and 4, it seems obvious that the only reason american men arm themselves is to feel that they have bigger penuses.
> 
> 6. I would not suggest that the law be changed to fit my feelings. I simply feel that it is not aesthetic to have a man collect firearms - in the same way I think it silly when I see a new yorker wearing a cowbody hat, only in this case you also have a good chance of killing somebody else by mistake.
Click to expand...

1. Incorrect. Some estimates have Americans defending themselves with firearms as many as 2.5 million times annually, whereas accidents with firearms occur approximate 600 times annually. https://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

2. You have proof to back this point up? It sounds more like conjecture and prejudiced opinion.

3. Chance of deaths from other causes is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is if some choose to get a fire extinguisher or a defribilator, as you suggest, they can without being ridiculed.

4. Again, do you have proof of this or is this more conjecture? Statistics in the U.S. shows that a person armed with a firearm is less likely to be injured or killed than someone who doesn't resist or resist without a firearm. https://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

5. Again, your prejudice is showing through without anything more than your wild speculations. No real proof.

6. As I said, you're entitled to that opinion, but your belief that somehow this armed person is likely to mistakenly kill someone is not based in reality.


----------



## ChubbyTiger

In the United States during 1997, people committed 15,289 murders. The perpetrators used a firearm in 10,369 of these instances. (1)

In the United States during 1997, people committed about 7,927,000 violent crimes. The perpetrators used a firearm in about 691,000 of these instances. (2)

As of 1992, for about every 14 violent crimes (murder, rape, etcâ€¦) committed in the United States, one person is sentenced to prison. (3)

As of 1992, average length of imprisonment for:

Murder	10.0 years
Rape	7.6 years
Aggravated Assault	3.4 years

Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals about 760,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 15 nationwide polls done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (4)

Approximately 11% of gun owners and 13% of handgun owners have used their firearms for protection from criminals. (5)

When citizens use guns for protection from criminals, the criminal is wounded in about 1 out of every 100 instances, and the criminal is killed in about 1 out of every 1000 instances. (5)

Note: This was 'borrowed' virtually verbatium from https://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

CT

Refs:
(1) "1997 Uniform Crime Reports." Federal Bureau of Investigation. Table 2.11

(2) Calculations performed with data from:
a) "1997 Uniform Crime Reports." Federal Bureau of Investigation. Table 2.11.
b) "National Crime Victimization Survey - Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1997 Statistical Tables." United States Department of Justice. Table 66.

(3) Independent calculations performed with 1992 data from:
1. "1992 Uniform Crime Reports." Page 10. Federal Bureau of Investigation.
2. "1995 Sourcebook Of Criminal Justice Statistics." Pages 468, 480, 497, 499. U.S. Department of Justice.

(4)Lott, John R. Jr. More Guns, Less Crime. The University of Chicago Press, 1998. Pages 1, 11, 43

(5) "1998 NRA Fact Card." Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site


----------



## Kav

What is the description of statistics? " lies, lies and more damn lies?" I could produce a whole storage shed full of old gun magazines, and after brushing off the mouse turds get lost in page after page of anecdotal stories, official police reports and studies. I could easily go to, say Handgun Control Inc. and get an equally supported 'truthfull' worldview about firearms. I imagine reality is ducking somewhere in between. Few societies take on a radical technollogy without radical impacts. The excellent HISTORY OF THE GUN- Guns,Steel and Germs and the old series Connections Broadcast on T.V. are excellent sources to understand this. And that brings up another point. Hollywood hands us gratuitous violence as social problem resolution with an utterly distorted view of firearms. Then a goodly portion of those employed by- YOU and ME have the Chutzpa to decide guns are bad and the great unwashed masses cannot be trusted with the things.The simple truth is the genie is out of the bottle, and few genies, except Hollywood genies willingly get stuffed back in. I'm off to a friend's house. He acquired a C96 with an islamic inscription. I want to find out if some bedu riding with El Aurens might have packed it once or if some modern mujahadeen had it done more recently. In any case I have a box of Fiocchi cat'ridges in case Garry James is about with that wire cutting SMLE of his[}]


----------



## globetrotter

mute, you obviously feel some type of embariousment at my posts, perhaps you recognize that you do, in fact, have a little tiny penis and that that may be the reason that you need a big, shiny, gun. 

yes, you have some very nice numbers from the people who lobby for gun sales. do you really think that it is a realistic number to suggest that there are only 600 firearm accidents every year? does taht seem like a reasonable or realistic number to you? 

look, you can summarize my argument in a few simle phrases, you don't need to accept them, and frankly feel free not to, I will probrably continue to ridicule you anyway. 

1. I don't believe that the vast majority of civillians are willing or able to put in the effort to achieve safe control of a firearm, or the ability to influence the outcome of an armed conflict in their favor. 

2. I believe, owning to the fact that most american gun owners to not arm themselves with the correct tools to respond to the threats they face, both in terms of armed conflict and in terms of other, far more likely threat, and yet they prefer to arm themselves with weapons that are "Cool" that their motives are suspect and they arm themselves to "play cowboy"

3. I believe that having firearms out in the market is dangerous, and while I have no problem with having firearms out their when they are actually doing some good, it offends me that people will endanger their neighbors and their children for the sake of feeling more manly or playing cowboy. 



here, you say that I have shown prejudice and conjecture - pray tell me, can you tell me what the most likly risks to you are, how you have prepared for them, how the weapons and tools you have at your disposal match the risks that you face? what training have you taken to use your firearms? what preiodic training do you do? how do you store them?

I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that you have not thought through will any of the above, and I would be willing to bet a bag full of cats that you have a firearm that is not fit in any way for the threats you face and situation that you are in. 


while several of the posters here have indeed impressed me with their level of seriousness in this matter, I am firmly convinced that this is not the average or the norm in the US.


I just did a quick google search and this is the first reply I found, I have no idea about the politics of the writter, but it was under "ask a grouchy old man", even if it isn't correct, and I believe it probrably is, it is a very significant difference from the numbers you have. 


Gunshot wounds inpact severely on the criminal justice as well as health care systems. Some basic statistics are important in understanding the magnitude and severity of the social and economic burden to the U.S.

In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004) This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2004).

The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996)

The rates of firearms deaths in the U.S. vary significantly by race and sex. The U.S. national average was 10.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 2001. The highest rate was 34.5/100,000 for African-American males, more than double the rate of 16.3/100,000 for white males and well above the rate of 2.7/100,000 for white females. (CDC, 2004)


----------



## JLibourel

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> What is the description of statistics? " lies, lies and more damn lies?" I could produce a whole storage shed full of old gun magazines, and after brushing off the mouse turds get lost in page after page of anecdotal stories, official police reports and studies. I could easily go to, say Handgun Control Inc. and get an equally supported 'truthfull' worldview about firearms. I imagine reality is ducking somewhere in between. Few societies take on a radical technollogy without radical impacts. The excellent HISTORY OF THE GUN- Guns,Steel and Germs and the old series Connections Broadcast on T.V. are excellent sources to understand this. And that brings up another point. Hollywood hands us gratuitous violence as social problem resolution with an utterly distorted view of firearms. Then a goodly portion of those employed by- YOU and ME have the Chutzpa to decide guns are bad and the great unwashed masses cannot be trusted with the things.The simple truth is the genie is out of the bottle, and few genies, except Hollywood genies willingly get stuffed back in. I'm off to a friend's house. He acquired a C96 with an islamic inscription. I want to find out if some bedu riding with El Aurens might have packed it once or if some modern mujahadeen had it done more recently. In any case I have a box of Fiocchi cat'ridges in case Garry James is about with that wire cutting SMLE of his[}]


Funny you should mention Garry. I was supposed to have joined him and some of his colleagues for lunch yesterday, the 18th, right after my W.W. Chan appointment, but he had to beg off. It appears his 95-year-old father is failing, so keep some good thoughts for Garry and his dad.


----------



## Mute

Once again, someone who can't really support his arguments resorts to personal attacks and ridicule. I have no problem with the size of anything, but it appears that you, sir, do in fact have a problem with it. I do not have a need for anything. In fact I like my guns small, compact and black. Everyone can look at the numbers and sources for themselves, as for you globetrotter, we are done. I don't think I need to sink down to your level to _try_, pathetically, to win a debate. If you care to proceed again like a gentlemen, I shall be glad to do so. It does my heart well for everyone to see the type of prejudical and elitist persons who shares the kind of beliefs that you hold. Good day.


----------



## Kav

Jan, Please keep me posted on Garry. I remember standing in front of the Pony Express with an old H&H Lee Metford sporter I had acquired talking with the gunsmiths. Garry pulled up in that Willys wagon and wasn't halfway out and allready telling me he once owned it! I always looked forward to chatting with him after that.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Mute_
> 
> Once again, someone who can't really support his arguments resorts to personal attacks and ridicule. I have no problem with the size of anything, but it appears that you, sir, do in fact have a problem with it. I do not have a need for anything. In fact I like my guns small, compact and black. Everyone can look at the numbers and sources for themselves, as for you globetrotter, we are done. I don't think I need to sink down to your level to _try_, pathetically, to win a debate. If you care to proceed again like a gentlemen, I shall be glad to do so. It does my heart well for everyone to see the type of prejudical and elitist persons who shares the kind of beliefs that you hold. Good day.


Mute, you are right, and I apologize. I find that every few weeks somebody pulls thins thread out, doens't bother the read through, and decides that I am some liberal anti-gun nut trying to take away their right to fire high powered amunition through their nieghbors walls while cleaning their assalt rifle. I should not have suggested anything about your anatomy.

look at my statistics. find your own that are not suported by anyone who is paid by either side. think about my questions to you about your own ability to operate your firearm. let me know if you think that your ability to influence an armed conflict in your favor is worth the loss of life and health that accurs in the US as a result of the unrestricted trade in firearms.

I am convinced, and that is from my personal package of experience, that the vast majority of armed americans have such a slight chance of influencing an armed accurnce that it simply does not justify the carnage that we face as a result of all these guns around. I resent the fact that my nighbors can buy weapons that can fire rounds through my house without having to learn how to use them. I resent the fact that parents of my sons friends can buy firearms and leave them around the house for thier kids to play with.


----------



## Literide

> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 5. having used firearms as a tool for several years, profetionally I find it distastful, and dangerous, for people who do not use firearms proffetionaly as tools, to have access to them.
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand or agree with some of the other things you said.
> 
> Yes, guns are tools. Yes some tools are dangerous (chainsaws, bleach, fertilizer, cars). But I can't agree with the above quote.
> 
> We agree they are tools. If only professionals have these tools, then what happens when you need the use of it but there are no professionals around? This could be late at night in a parking garage, in your own home, or during periods of civil unrest.
> 
> Not to mention the Bill of Rights thing. Always good to have something incase the next King of England wants to reclaim his colonies.
> 
> Not to be combative, but you come off sounding a "good enough for me, but not for you" type. Much like the celebrities and politicians who argue for more gun control for the people while they hire body guards for themselves.
Click to expand...

CQ, to your last point, and that has always been one the things that infuriated me the most. Whether it be Rosie O'Douhnuts taking Tom Selleck for task for his NRA affiliation while having armed guards on her payroll, or your typical leftist politician who wants to take my guns while my tax dollars provide their armed security. If I recall my Orwell correctly, "some pigs are more equal than others".


----------



## Literide

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> I didn't grow up around firearms. There was my grandfather's 1912 Winchester shotgun in a closet unshot because it kicked unmercifully ( years later I determined 2 3/4" full base shells in a 2 9/16" shotgun might be a factor[B)])On our 16th birthday my mother bought us BB rifles. We weren't allowed to shoot them until after a long drive to Red Rock in the desert. We were further humiliated when she made us wear gold, soft plastic roman legionaire helmets from our earlier toy collections. Standing in the debitage of beer bottles and human waste [xx(] I lost all interest. Then in Bootcamp I was handed a M 1 Garand to qualify for Honour Guard detail and later the M16. With proper instruction I managed to shoot expert on both. later we qualified with the 1911 .45 and S&W .38 Victory and again, somehow I shot expert.I was hooked! Stationed in Kodiak, I took my first green check to Krafts general store. Gunnar, the appropriately named salesman carefully questioned what I THOUGHT I needed and my experience. I walked out with a 98 Mauser in french grey with leaf sights chambered in 7x57 and a box of handloaded 174 grain cartridges. Happily the big brownies and I had some encounters that remained friendly. Later a rather intoxicated crab fisherman walked into the Breakers restaurant looking for drinking money. He was dragging a mint 28" barrelled 95 Winchester in .30-40 Krag and a funny peepsight. Everybody laughed at him but me. I borrowed $100 from my shipmate and paid $300 for it. Gunnar took one look and I walked out with another Mauser in .35 Whelen and a funny name Gunnar pronounced 'Gyp them and how'- Griffen and HoweI've owned or shot just about every category since then; for pleasure, serious military duties and self defence as an archaeologist stumbliing into marijuana farms. The social history and genius ( and what were they THINKING!) of design alone is fascinating. I'm a California liberal who loves putting on a tie and suit and taking a neophyte out to learn how to shoot almost as much as educating my liberal friends about the validity of firearms in a truly free- and responsible society.


Kav,
Are you sure you are not a Libertarian?
Cheers


----------



## Kav

I sort of follow the thinking of Nick Nolte in the marvelous movie RETURN OF THE KING. A communist who becomes a sarawak king When I was an active green party member I was called a socialist by my republican nieghbor and 'dangerous' by the doctor of homeopathic medicine I out debated on firearms. Before that I was a democrat who's family supported Goldwater. Populism is interesting, and many of my shooting friends are libertarians.I tried intellectual anarchy ( not the morons in black tainting valid demonstrations) but couldn't get organised. I still think we should have held a debate with Nader, Jessie Ventura , Buchannan and the gnome running on the legalise marijuana platform. It would have been much more engaging than theose two marionettes tweedle dee and tweedle dumb. I think I like my present voter designation, independant


----------



## Patrick06790

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> I sort of follow the thinking of Nick Nolte in the marvelous movie RETURN OF THE KING. A communist who becomes a sarawak king When I was an active green party member I was called a socialist by my republican nieghbor and 'dangerous' by the doctor of homeopathic medicine I out debated on firearms. Before that I was a democrat who's family supported Goldwater. Populism is interesting, and many of my shooting friends are libertarians.I tried intellectual anarchy ( not the morons in black tainting valid demonstrations) but couldn't get organised. I still think we should have held a debate with Nader, Jessie Ventura , Buchannan and the gnome running on the legalise marijuana platform. It would have been much more engaging than theose two marionettes tweedle dee and tweedle dumb. I think I like my present voter designation, independant


I believe you are thinking of Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber. We need their candid Yale snapshots on that other thread.


----------



## Kav

I always loved it when William Bacchus as Thurston Howell III encountered a gorilla or other antagonist on Gilligan's Island with the line "must be a Yale man."If this thread persists I may run out of comments like so many empty, olive ammo boxes


----------



## crazyquik

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> The simple truth is the genie is out of the bottle, and few genies, except Hollywood genies willingly get stuffed back in.


Agreed, and often overlooked.

There are a lot of guns in the USA. Restricting the ownership of them will only prevent the law abiding from having them. Criminals are, by nature, willing to break the law. The person who will commit a robbery or rape (illegal actions) are not going to let something else that is illegal (carrying a gun) stop them. One only has to look to Washington DC New York City (and even Emgland) to see that preventing the law abiding from having weapons/handguns does not prevent the criminal class from it.

A female police constable was just shot in Britain (England I think?). This, in a place who's gun control is the standard of the Western world held up by many. But wait, the 1997 crime bill should have prevented that!

Why, it has even stopped those hidious criminals the Olympic pistol team.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Literide_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 5. having used firearms as a tool for several years, profetionally I find it distastful, and dangerous, for people who do not use firearms proffetionaly as tools, to have access to them.
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand or agree with some of the other things you said.
> 
> Yes, guns are tools. Yes some tools are dangerous (chainsaws, bleach, fertilizer, cars). But I can't agree with the above quote.
> 
> We agree they are tools. If only professionals have these tools, then what happens when you need the use of it but there are no professionals around? This could be late at night in a parking garage, in your own home, or during periods of civil unrest.
> 
> Not to mention the Bill of Rights thing. Always good to have something incase the next King of England wants to reclaim his colonies.
> 
> Not to be combative, but you come off sounding a "good enough for me, but not for you" type. Much like the celebrities and politicians who argue for more gun control for the people while they hire body guards for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CQ, to your last point, and that has always been one the things that infuriated me the most. Whether it be Rosie O'Douhnuts taking Tom Selleck for task for his NRA affiliation while having armed guards on her payroll, or your typical leftist politician who wants to take my guns while my tax dollars provide their armed security. If I recall my Orwell correctly, "some pigs are more equal than others".
Click to expand...

I offer to all the same equality - spend three years training 8 hours a day, sleeping in the cold and the heat, eating crappy food and having the enemies of your people shooting at you, and you too will know how to operate a firearm correctly. unless you are missing a leg or are blind, my friend, you had the same oportunity to learn to safely use a firearm while serving your people that I had.


----------



## crazyquik

We both know it does not take nearly that commitment to be proficient with firearms.

Most gun owners I know (I will admit they are clearly not a representative sample though) are safer and more proficient than the average law enforcement officer. The difference is someone who is enthusiastic about firearms, firing thousands of rounds a year in organized competitions, and someone who sees them as a requirement for the job (just like handcuffs, pepper spray, and a baton) and merely shoots enough to stay qualified for thier job.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> We both know it does not take nearly that commitment to be proficient with firearms.
> 
> Most gun owners I know (I will admit they are clearly not a representative sample though) are safer and more proficient than the average law enforcement officer. The difference is someone who is enthusiastic about firearms, firing thousands of rounds a year in organized competitions, and someone who sees them as a requirement for the job (just like handcuffs, pepper spray, and a baton) and merely shoots enough to stay qualified for thier job.


most gun owners that I know drink too much and have no idea how to handle their firearms and leave them unlocked in drawers where there are children in the house.

I will stipulate that these are about as representative as the ones you know, and that the vast majority fall in the middle.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Literide_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 5. having used firearms as a tool for several years, profetionally I find it distastful, and dangerous, for people who do not use firearms proffetionaly as tools, to have access to them.
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand or agree with some of the other things you said.
> 
> Yes, guns are tools. Yes some tools are dangerous (chainsaws, bleach, fertilizer, cars). But I can't agree with the above quote.
> 
> We agree they are tools. If only professionals have these tools, then what happens when you need the use of it but there are no professionals around? This could be late at night in a parking garage, in your own home, or during periods of civil unrest.
> 
> Not to mention the Bill of Rights thing. Always good to have something incase the next King of England wants to reclaim his colonies.
> 
> Not to be combative, but you come off sounding a "good enough for me, but not for you" type. Much like the celebrities and politicians who argue for more gun control for the people while they hire body guards for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CQ, to your last point, and that has always been one the things that infuriated me the most. Whether it be Rosie O'Douhnuts taking Tom Selleck for task for his NRA affiliation while having armed guards on her payroll, or your typical leftist politician who wants to take my guns while my tax dollars provide their armed security. If I recall my Orwell correctly, "some pigs are more equal than others".
Click to expand...

here is another thing - Rosie Odonnal, and I am not only no a fan, but I have never seen her on TV (I see her around town sometimes, she is a neighbor, and doens't have a bodyguard when she is walking around her town, by the way) is faces by a very specific threat that is answered very well by a profetionaly guard - it is very probable that some armed crazy person will attempt to attack her or kidnap one of her children. the level of threat is such that an attack of this type might not be solved with a non lethal weapon, but would most probrably be soved with profetional armed intervention.

this to me is a very logical situation.

in my case - the most likly violent threat to me is, statistically, is by an anarmed, or lightly armed group of teenagers, or a single male who might think me an easy target, also unarmed. (there has been one armed robbery in my county in the past 3 or 4 years of a person walking on the street, 3 or 4 home invasions, and 2 homecides - all of which happened in demographics and neighborhoods very different from my own). I answer this threat by studying martial arts and carrying non lethal weapons. this is pretty much an exact fit. the threat of home invasion is pretty much non existant, and the times that it has happend in my area it was carried out by proffectionals, in a large group, at 3 am, targeting people who had large amounts of cash in their house and who were involved in the fringes of organized crime. frankly, unless I slept with an assult rifle under my bed with a magazine inside, I would not have been able to intervine, in any event. It is more likely that a couple of unarmed kids may try to break into my house and steal something - and again, I feel that the non-lethal tools that I have at my disposal are more than adequate to answer this.

what is the threat to you that you need a firearm in your house? do you really feel that having a firearm will then make enough of a difference to solve this threat?


----------



## smlaz

Interesting thread, but of course . I learned to respect firearms at an early age, shooting targets with a .22 and later shooting skeet and trap. The only thing I can add here is that people who own firearms should, by law, be trained to use them. I have no problem with that. To the earlier points about martial arts being a comfort, I would suggest that martial arts can take one only so far, given the type of attack and the size of the attacker. At 5'3" I am an easy target for anyone of average or better size. My knowledge of one martial art or another will do me little good on the street when a gun is pointed at me or when the attacker is large and knows how to fight. Then the only thing I can do is run, and I've done that twice. One other time I was accosted by a wisea** street punk on Avenue A, who literally pushed me around until I made him sorry he went out that night. But then he didn't really know how to fight. 

I might be able to do some damage to the large one, but when push comes to shove, I'd better put out his eyes first time around or I'm in trouble. The arts are good to know, and I wish more people trained in them and respected them (as opposed to the jokers who watch the movies and think it's as simple as kicking your foot through a glass window etc.). However, I would rather be able to carry if I felt a need, and be trained in the proper use of the firearm, than be subject to circumstances where I'd need to carry and didn't, or couldn't, have.
Respectfully,
Steve

Niceness is an overrated quality. Being nice is how a man pays his way into the party if he hasn't the guts to be tough or the class to be brilliant. - James Abbott McNeil Whistler


----------



## globetrotter

I just read an intereting article in "Men's Journal" where they interviewed 4 security consultants (2 ex nypd cops and 2 ex secret service men) about how they protected their house. they all had noisy dogs, not nessasarily large dogs, the consensus seemed to labs. 2 didn't have firearms but had nightsticks in the house (one secret service one a retired chief of NYPD). one had firearms, but he said that was for his work and not for home protection and that he advised against firearms. only one kept a firearm for home protection.


----------



## Kav

The texas rangers have just held off Scar's comanches after fording the river. Ward Bond jerks the Duke's carbine down with the comment "leave them carry of their dead and wounded." Duke gets mad and after chewing out the whole party fires a final near futile shot-last word at the retreating indians.This thread is getting to be like that scene. I used a firearm once in defence of hearth and home. I was briefly involved in Cowboy Mounted Action Shooting before it turned into Tombstone meets Rennaissance Faire in a dark alley.I was home late after a long drive, sitting in my living room, togged like Quiqley all over, drinking coffee and cleaning my scattergun. And what a fowler it was; a civilian 1897 riot shotgun in mint condition with bluing catching the sunrise. I saw this HAND appear slowly opening my curtain and sliding screen door, followed by this person. The shotgun, just reeasembled went level and the deadly racking sound and dog earred position of the external hammer disguising an empty chamber. "good morning, please drop the wrecking bar and assume the position.He complied to the calm earnestness of my alter ego, Alkaloid Dick from Bret Harte. You won't shoot me will you? No, the local sheriff will put me through to much misery. How much money do you have on you? He fished out $7 and his license. Well, Dejohn, I'm keeping the $7 and the wrecking bar. You go home now and dont come back to Ventura." DeJohn slipped back over my fence mumbling as the coffee started percolating. I later traded off the acouterments and weapons of that persona for a U.P cavalry saddle and lance, genteel kit of a more refined era of bloodletting.


----------



## Bow Tie

The debate over firearms for home defense is moot. The beauty of this country is the American people's ability to own firearms, much along the same lines as the freedom to speak against the government and burn an American Flag. The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights saw fit to include among our inalienable rights these freedoms. That is the reason America is the Land of the Free. I am more than willing to take the risk that I will accidentally shoot myself or be shot by someone else, if it means that I am free to own firearms, if I choose to do so. I do not keep firearms specifically for home defense. If someone breaks into my house, I do not know if they will meet the barrell of MY German Officer's Walther PP, brought back from War 2, MY Franchi 612 shotgun, MY Marlin 30-30, MY L.C. Smith 12 gauge, or MY Remington .22. Chances are it will be one of the shotguns, as a shotgun's blast is unlikely to penetrate the walls of the house, especially when loaded with birdshot, which is all I have. The point of my discourse is that it is not anyone's place but my own to determine my ability to own firearms. I enjoy hunting, as well as skeet shooting. According to Globetrotter this makes me a childish adult. That is his opinion, to which he is entitled by the framers, as is my opinion that his is both ludicrous and simpleminded. I do not mean to attack Globetrotter perssonally; I am merely making a point. So many people forget what the people who first fought for this country knew so well. There is no other country like the United States. Historically our citizens do not like being restricted, although this is often forgotten as of late. Globetrotter, I commend you and respect you for your services to our country, but do not think for one minute that it grants you some sort of placement above those who have not served. That attitude is reserved for less civil nations. I am sorry for such a long post, but some of the threads in this post have rubbed me the wrong way.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Bow Tie_
> 
> The debate over firearms for home defense is moot. The beauty of this country is the American people's ability to own firearms, much along the same lines as the freedom to speak against the government and burn an American Flag. The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights saw fit to include among our inalienable rights these freedoms. That is the reason America is the Land of the Free. I am more than willing to take the risk that I will accidentally shoot myself or be shot by someone else, if it means that I am free to own firearms, if I choose to do so. I do not keep firearms specifically for home defense. If someone breaks into my house, I do not know if they will meet the barrell of MY German Officer's Walther PP, brought back from War 2, MY Franchi 612 shotgun, MY Marlin 30-30, MY L.C. Smith 12 gauge, or MY Remington .22. Chances are it will be one of the shotguns, as a shotgun's blast is unlikely to penetrate the walls of the house, especially when loaded with birdshot, which is all I have. The point of my discourse is that it is not anyone's place but my own to determine my ability to own firearms. I enjoy hunting, as well as skeet shooting. According to Globetrotter this makes me a childish adult. That is his opinion, to which he is entitled by the framers, as is my opinion that his is both ludicrous and simpleminded. I do not mean to attack Globetrotter perssonally; I am merely making a point. So many people forget what the people who first fought for this country knew so well. There is no other country like the United States. Historically our citizens do not like being restricted, although this is often forgotten as of late. Globetrotter, I commend you and respect you for your services to our country, but do not think for one minute that it grants you some sort of placement above those who have not served. That attitude is reserved for less civil nations. I am sorry for such a long post, but some of the threads in this post have rubbed me the wrong way.


bow tie,

I apprectiate the polite tone of your post.

1. I don't believe the debate about firearms in home defense is moot. I would agree that you have the right to keep and bear arms, and I, as I have mentioned several times above, do not believe that this should be taken away. I think that the bigger debate is whether it is a good idea to keep firearms to defend your house - most experts in security, as well as pretty much anybody who has taken a university statistics course, would suggest that it is not a good idea.

2. it is your right to take a risk with your life, what I am more concerned about is when gun owners take risks with other people's lives. the numbers on this are truly shocking in terms of how many people are killed and maimed every year in accidents, or by firearms that were stolen from people who didn't keep them safe enough. I apprectiate that you use birdshot in your shotguns with the intent of not pentrating the walls, but not everybody does.

3. Bow tie, not to attack you personally, but your answer as to what a person who breaks into your house will meet is excactly the type of answer that proves my point. you do not even know which of your weapons you will go for, and to suggest that you could get any of them, suggests that they are all loaded. I would be very suprised if soembody broke into your house at 3 am and woke you up if you would be capable of defending your house safly and effectivly without a plan. if you said "I have a 20 guage shotgun loaded with 7 shot in a safe next to my bed so that if somebody breaks in I know exactly what I am doing and I drill in this 4 times a year with my family" then it will give me more confidence in your ability.

4. I in no way place my self above others - I simple feel that the level that is required to own and operate a firearm by law today in insuffitient, and I do not believe that most gun owners can safly operate their firearms (an opinion that is easily proven by statistics).

5. and again, no offense meant to any gun owners, but I feel that situations where adult men pretend to be something they are not is childish. It is obvious to me that most firearm owners own their firearms for reasons that are emotional and not rational. in my mind, that makes it childish. and, like I have said numourous times, I don't have that opinion about people who use firwarms responibly, or who hunt for meat, or who use their firearms for their work.

3.


----------



## crazyquik

To be civil:
_what is the threat to you that you need a firearm in your house? do you really feel that having a firearm will then make enough of a difference to solve this threat?_

I keep firearms for defense for the same reasons police officers do. They are sometimes confronted by armed aggressors. Some will never fire thier weapon while on duty, so statistically I should never have to fire mine in a defensive situation. However they still find it prudent to have access to them. I have not personally been confronted by an armed aggressor but if/when it does happen I hope to be as prepared as I can, while knowing you can never be totally prepared for such an event.

With this mentality, you can imagine that I find reading British op-ed pages surreal as they argue about whether the police should be armed or not.

I don't believe that just because crime tends to happen in "demographics and neighborhoods very different from my own" that I can foresake my security. In fact, I do not know of any crime that has happened in my neighborhood, which is rural, full of farms, and it would not be an exaggeration to say that every other house had guns in it (it might be an understatement).

Especially as methampetamines sweeps the middle/rural portions of the country and often brings with it addiction and increasing violence. If you have something worth protecting (a house, nice things, your loved ones) then I feel its your duty to be able to protect it. For different people this means different things though.

And with that, I think I'll go hunting this afternoon


----------



## crazyquik

In regards to kids and guns. 

First, I do not have kids, but when/if I have them I will teach them about firearms. 

That they are not toys. That if you find one you shouldn't touch it. That guns are like knives, saws and fire, you do not 'play' with them. You especially do not wave them around and act out Hollywood scenes. 

However like knives, saws, fire, etc, I will teach my children to use them under strict adult supervision. They will be familiar with them. My children will learn about airguns and later firearms from me and other responsible adults, not from movies and video games.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> And with that, I think I'll go hunting this afternoon


have a nice afternoon. good luck


----------



## Murrah

"It is obvious to me that most firearm owners own their firearms for reasons that are emotional and not rational."

How many firearm owners do you know?


----------



## FlatSix

> quote:n the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004) This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2004).


These numbers aren't too bad.

Suicide... that is a personal choice and there are other methods. Legal Intervention... I suppose that is a nice way of saying "representatives of the government killing citizens under the protection of a badge".

We are left with about 12,500 unwanted deaths from private firearms annually in the US. Some time around the end of March in 2006, the annual motor vehicle death total for that year will eclipse the likely list of people killed with the aid of a firearm.

Globetrotter appears to feel that, in order to own a firearm, one should be trained to kill by the government first. *I* feel that, in order to own a motor vehicle, you should be able to lap a race course in a time competitive to trained race drivers.

My suggestion, if implemented, would virtually eliminate highway death, both by drastically culling highway drivers and vastly improving the skill of those who remain. It might save 35,000 lives a year or more.

By contrast, there are currently over 230,000 veterans of the armed forces serving time in this country's jails, many for violent crimes, and comprising about 12% of the prison population. Veterans appear to commit violent crime at a rate somewhat more than half of what the general population does. So at best this would save half those 12,000 fatalities, for a total of 6,000 lives saved.

While this is a thought exercise, surely it indicates where the _real_ deadly behavior is in this country - on the nation's highways and byways. The same logic which states that we need to do things like buy 100lb dogs which occasionally kill children for home protection rather than own firearms also indicates that we need to cast aside the motoring log in our own eye before we point at the firearms mote in someone else's.

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

"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Murrah_
> 
> "It is obvious to me that most firearm owners own their firearms for reasons that are emotional and not rational."
> 
> How many firearm owners do you know?


not very many. not very many, a half dozen or so who I figure are more or less typical, and then a few dozen who own a single high quality handgun, and are very good at using it. But maybe you can help me out in understading the reasons.

it seems to me that there are a few, but please do suggest any that I may have missed:

hunting - perfectly rational reason, for the most part. a few bucks worth of amunition gives you a days enjoyment and a season's worth of meat, if you are lucky. semi- irrational, but in a good way, is the fun that we get from hunting.

like to have fancy weapons around the house, in one form or another of argument - not rational. pretty toy vs. possible accidental death or having gun stolen and used in crime. not a very rational argument

self defence - here is the big trojan horse. all the experts that I have spoken too (and, here, trust me that aside from maybe mr. Laurel I probrably know more people who are considered "Security experts" and make their livings at it than aybody else who posts here) do not believe that the cost/benifit of keep ing a firearm in your house pays off for security. there are much much better ways to protect your house. on top of that, unless you are a drug dealer living in a "hood" the chance of your using a firearm to protect yourself is much less than your needing other thing - a defibrillator, some good fire extinguishers etc. so when a person buys way too much gun for what he needs, and doens't rationaly look at the risks he faces, I would call that emotional and not rational.


----------



## Murrah

Thanks for the reply. I doubt we'd convince each other on the rationality of having a gun in the house for self-defense purposes. When I had glanced over your posts before, I understood you to equate "emotional" with people trying to act "tough" by owning a firearm. Your reply fleshes out my understanding of your position.


----------



## AzChilicat

I'm sad that the concept of "bullet as pathogen" hasn't been introduced yet. During my public health days that was always a favorite one of mine to deflate.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Murrah_
> 
> Thanks for the reply. I doubt we'd convince each other on the rationality of having a gun in the house for self-defense purposes. When I had glanced over your posts before, I understood you to equate "emotional" with people trying to act "tough" by owning a firearm. Your reply fleshes out my understanding of your position.


thanks for the civil post. I agree, we wil probrably never convince each other - and with any luck, niether of us will ever see evidence that either of us are right or wrong.


----------



## petro

> quote:_Originally posted by TimmyMac_
> 
> Cliff, I can remove this gun from the safe, remove the bore lock, load the magazine and have a round in the chamber in about 15 seconds. Hardly a rock. NO GUN SHOULD EVER BE STORED LOADED!!!


It's two in the morning and you hear your daughter/son/wife scream.

It's going to take you longer than "15 seconds" to get the safe door open (is it *in* the bedroom?), get the magazine in the pistol and a round chambered.

If you feel you need a firearm for self defense (and I'm *totally* behind gun ownership for self defense) that firearm *should* be kept loaded (and locked if you've got children in the house), otherwise you're going to be fumbling around with the safe, dropping the magazine &&etc. as you get more and more frantic while your loved one is getting hurt.

If someone kicks in your front door intent on mayhem you may not HAVE 15 seconds in front of the safe, you're in a fight NOW, and they're not going to wait for you to gun up.

If for security it should be loaded and ready to hand, otherwise it's just psychological, which is ok.

This could be the last day of the rest of your life


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by petro_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by TimmyMac_
> 
> Cliff, I can remove this gun from the safe, remove the bore lock, load the magazine and have a round in the chamber in about 15 seconds. Hardly a rock. NO GUN SHOULD EVER BE STORED LOADED!!!
> 
> 
> 
> It's two in the morning and you hear your daughter/son/wife scream.
> 
> It's going to take you longer than "15 seconds" to get the safe door open (is it *in* the bedroom?), get the magazine in the pistol and a round chambered.
> 
> If you feel you need a firearm for self defense (and I'm *totally* behind gun ownership for self defense) that firearm *should* be kept loaded (and locked if you've got children in the house), otherwise you're going to be fumbling around with the safe, dropping the magazine &&etc. as you get more and more frantic while your loved one is getting hurt.
> 
> If someone kicks in your front door intent on mayhem you may not HAVE 15 seconds in front of the safe, you're in a fight NOW, and they're not going to wait for you to gun up.
> 
> If for security it should be loaded and ready to hand, otherwise it's just psychological, which is ok.
> 
> This could be the last day of the rest of your life
Click to expand...

and yes, exactly the example I was looking for, thank you very much.

so, do you feel confident enough that:

1. at two am somebody wakes you up and you are clear headed and cool enough to exchange fire with them?

2. that you, woken up from sleep, will be a match for a profetional bad guy, who typically works at night and is has been awake and psyching himself up for this?

3. that you won't have any accidents at 2 am with the firearm?

4. that leaving an unlocked, loaded and ready firearm around the house is actually less likly to cause an accidental death than having a stranger kick in the door at 2 am and kill you and your family?

5. that the firearm that you have is actually the right one for the potential risks that you face, as well as the amunition?

keeping a firarm loaded and under the bed is a huge huge mistake. it is an accidental death waiting to happen. if you live in a place where that is a rational response to the risk level you are under, move.


----------



## petro

> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> What sort of trips my trigger is that while citizens were told to move out, and even unlawfully disarmed, "private military contracters" like Blackwater were being paid to come in. If there were a militia or "civil reserve" there would be no need for Blackwater mercenaries.


As someone who offered his services to one of those PMCs, let's clear a few things up here:

1) Most of the PMCs were brought in to protect private assets--they were essentially armed security guards. In one case they had to clear a 20-30 floor hotel that had non-registered guests who did not want to leave.

Imagine trying to clear *every* room and *every* nook and cranny of a large hotel. 
Floor by floor. 
In the dark (no electricity) 
Without Air Conditioning. 
In New Orleans. 
In early September. 
Not knowing whether it's just some scared kids hiding, or some more serious criminals. 
Oh, and no elevators.

Someone had to do it.

2) A few were brought in to perform personal security for FEMA personel. The Lousiana State Government was not able to provide sufficient security assets to do this (whether from incompetence, or being overwhelmed with the destruction), it is *probably* illegal to use regular military assets for this, and man of these PMCs specialize in personal security (as opposed to Military personel who's training is different).

PMCs were not used (to my knowlege) used to force people from their homes or to disarm them. This was primarily NOPD, PD assets from other jurisdictions, and (possibly) National Guard.

3) There are *still* Private Secuirty assets there working with FEMA. At least there are occasionally contract renewals.

This could be the last day of the rest of your life


----------



## FlatSix

> quote:2. that you, woken up from sleep, will be a match for a profetional bad guy, who typically works at night and is has been awake and psyching himself up for this?


I think the answer to this is "yes" more often than one might suspect. "Profetional bad guys" tend to avoid shooting ranges and formal training like that plague. In documented shooting situations, their accuracy is usually even worse than that of the police, who tend to miss four or five times for every time they hit.

Furthermore, the motivation of a robber is considerably different from a man whose family or life is under threat.

Last but not least, we are all men (or women) here and not slaves or rabbits. It is a human right to defend oneself regardless of ability to do so. You might as well suggest that an elderly rape victim "lay back and enjoy it" rather than fight back against a stronger opponent.



> quote:3. that you won't have any accidents at 2 am with the firearm?
> 
> 4. that leaving an unlocked, loaded and ready firearm around the house is actually less likly to cause an accidental death than having a stranger kick in the door at 2 am and kill you and your family?


With properly disciplined children, I don't see any problem. My father could have placed a loaded Stg44 on my bed covered with candy every night and commanded me not to touch it and I would have complied.

This is fear-mongering on your part. How about the dogs you recommended repeatedly in this thread. Any mention on your part about the times when supposedly safely trained attack dogs turn on children? Would you like to see photographs?



> quote:keeping a firarm loaded and under the bed is a huge huge mistake. it is an accidental death waiting to happen. if you live in a place where that is a rational response to the risk level you are under, move.


I would guess there is a loaded gun in every second or third house in my town, which has been around since the early 1800s. There has never been an accidental firearms death here. Never.

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

"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## petro

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> Globetrotter appears to feel that, in order to own a firearm, one should be trained to kill by the government first. *I* feel that, in order to own a motor vehicle, you should be able to lap a race course in a time competitive to trained race drivers.
> 
> My suggestion, if implemented, would virtually eliminate highway death, both by drastically culling highway drivers and vastly improving the skill of those who remain. It might save 35,000 lives a year or more.


Don't forget to also force automobile owners to do the same level of maintence that airplanes are required to have.

This could be the last day of the rest of your life


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:2. that you, woken up from sleep, will be a match for a profetional bad guy, who typically works at night and is has been awake and psyching himself up for this?
> 
> 
> 
> I think the answer to this is "yes" more often than one might suspect. "Profetional bad guys" tend to avoid shooting ranges and formal training like that plague. In documented shooting situations, their accuracy is usually even worse than that of the police, who tend to miss four or five times for every time they hit.
> 
> Furthermore, the motivation of a robber is considerably different from a man whose family or life is under threat.
> 
> Last but not least, we are all men (or women) here and not slaves or rabbits. It is a human right to defend oneself regardless of ability to do so. You might as well suggest that an elderly rape victim "lay back and enjoy it" rather than fight back against a stronger opponent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:3. that you won't have any accidents at 2 am with the firearm?
> 
> 4. that leaving an unlocked, loaded and ready firearm around the house is actually less likly to cause an accidental death than having a stranger kick in the door at 2 am and kill you and your family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With properly disciplined children, I don't see any problem. My father could have placed a loaded Stg44 on my bed covered with candy every night and commanded me not to touch it and I would have complied.
> 
> This is fear-mongering on your part. How about the dogs you recommended repeatedly in this thread. Any mention on your part about the times when supposedly safely trained attack dogs turn on children? Would you like to see photographs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:keeping a firarm loaded and under the bed is a huge huge mistake. it is an accidental death waiting to happen. if you live in a place where that is a rational response to the risk level you are under, move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would guess there is a loaded gun in every second or third house in my town, which has been around since the early 1800s. There has never been an accidental firearms death here. Never.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> "When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff
> 
> "First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia
> 
> " I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790
Click to expand...

again, I think that we won't be able to convince each other, I just hope that we never have an opportunity to prove each other right or wrong.

but keep in mind, if I remember correctly, you were, or are, a profetional racer - bike or motor, sorry I don't remember - this is a lot like us having differing opinions as to a bike or car issue. my opinion on this isn't anywhere near as valuable as yours, when it comes to your profetion.

I have trained too large a number of men to remember in how to use firearms at pro level. and I have been in a number of middle of the night firefights. and a lot of my friends happen to be the kind of people who get quoted as "Security experts". this happens to be a subject that we discuss a bit, and seem to have pretty consistant views.

by the way - I agree with you about fighting dogs - wouldn't suggest one to a family. labs are great - you don't want a dog to fight, you want him to bark, give you time to wake up and check what is going on.

I also, if you read the thread, don't suggest not defending yourself. I suggest defeding yourself vigarously, with a non-lethal weapon. not becuase I care about the person attacking your household, but because the cost/benifit analysis is so much better.

I have a 24 inch night stick next to my bed, and a 1 kilo canister of CS gas/pepper spray mix. I have a similar set by my front door. there is no better chance of anybody killing themselves with it by acident than with a kitchen rolling pin. if it were to get stolen, there is no blood on my hands.

on the other hand, the only risk that I am not able to cover is well armed and trained people breaking into my house with the intent to kill me, and frankly, without an unlocked and loaded firearm under my bed, I don't think that I would be able to face that threat, anyway.

Flatsix, you may be right, but I have a feeling that you are either misreading the numbers of people in your town with loaded and unlocked firearms in their houses, or misreading the nunber of accidents. but, hey, I may be wrong.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by petro_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> Globetrotter appears to feel that, in order to own a firearm, one should be trained to kill by the government first. *I* feel that, in order to own a motor vehicle, you should be able to lap a race course in a time competitive to trained race drivers.
> 
> My suggestion, if implemented, would virtually eliminate highway death, both by drastically culling highway drivers and vastly improving the skill of those who remain. It might save 35,000 lives a year or more.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget to also force automobile owners to do the same level of maintence that airplanes are required to have.
> 
> This could be the last day of the rest of your life
Click to expand...

petro, you are simply a fantastic example of emotional response to this question -

the cost/benifit of car ownership is huge compared to that of a firearm. it makes sense to "risk" the deaths assosiated with cars. if you say that firearms are supposed to save lives, and then do the math and they actually "Cost" lives, net, then that simply doesn't make sense, does it?


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Murrah_
> 
> Thanks for the reply. I doubt we'd convince each other on the rationality of having a gun in the house for self-defense purposes. When I had glanced over your posts before, I understood you to equate "emotional" with people trying to act "tough" by owning a firearm. Your reply fleshes out my understanding of your position.


murrah,

if you see the above two posters, you will understand my position.


----------



## Murrah

You've made your position very clear. I am diametrically opposed to it.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Murrah_
> 
> You've made your position very clear. I am diametrically opposed to it.


fair enough. and, like I said, I hope niether of us has a chance to be proved right or wrong.


----------



## petro

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> and yes, exactly the example I was looking for, thank you very much.
> 
> so, do you feel confident enough that:
> 
> 1. at two am somebody wakes you up and you are clear headed and cool enough to exchange fire with them?


Yes.

I have (routinely and professionally) been required to roll out of bed at 2 in the morning and solved *much* more complicated problems that shooting some miscreant.



> quote:
> 2. that you, woken up from sleep, will be a match for a profetional bad guy, who typically works at night and is has been awake and psyching himself up for this?


Yes. This is why I "play" with guns. To develop and maintain the skills and mindset needed.



> quote:
> 3. that you won't have any accidents at 2 am with the firearm?


Training. Training. Training.

You call it playing, but you have a problem with other people penis sizes, so I'm not not sure you're qualifed to comment.



> quote:
> 4. that leaving an unlocked, loaded and ready firearm around the house is actually less likly to cause an accidental death than having a stranger kick in the door at 2 am and kill you and your family?


My wife knows how to handle firearms, and modern handguns just don't go bang unless you pull the trigger.

Should we have children things will tighten up a bit, but there is a lot of space between "under the bed" and "field striped in a safe with empty magazines and ammunition in a different part of the house". Unlike the only person you know who admits to having a gun, most of the people in this world are not drunken irresponsible fools, and we can generally evaluate risks.



> quote:
> 5. that the firearm that you have is actually the right one for the potential risks that you face, as well as the amunition?


The handgun for self defense is the one you've got in your hand. Personally *I* would prefer either a Mossberg Jungle Gun, a Benelli M4, or an full auto M4, but I've yet to acquire a combat shotgun, and pantywaisted ninnies like you have made it illegal for me to own the approiate means of self defense.

I'm fairly certain that in my hands a 9mm is adquite for anything in my threat model. If it is not, it is fairly certain that .45 would not be much better, and past that you're looking to rifles or shotguns.

The simple fact is that *any* 30 caliber or higher pistol round (.380 auto, 38 etc.) is mostly inadequite for reliably stopping people. Even the vaunted and much loved .45 has routine failures to stop on the first round. To effectively stop an attacker hell bent on causing you harm you need to RUIN his body.

To stop some random bad guy you simply need to have something in your hands that goes bang. Most "bad guys" really don't want to kill you, they want your TV, they want your silver and your cash. A .32 is sufficient to disuade them where a "night stick" wielded by a nervous homeowner may just egg them on.



> quote:
> keeping a firarm loaded and under the bed is a huge huge mistake. it is an accidental death waiting to happen.


Nonsense. You've been reading too much fiction. And yes, there are certain doctors who get their articles published in JAMA and NJM who write very convincing fiction.

Modern firearms DO NOT go off unless you pull the trigger, and while a firearm should be kept out of hte hands of children, they will NOT general defeat a simpler gun lock.

I don't have children in my home on a routine basis, and on the rare occasion when one is, the loaded gun is secured appropriately for that child's age.

Children can AND HAVE been trained from very young ages to respect firearms and handle them properly. It's like teaching them to look both ways AND WAIT FOR CLEAR TRAFFIC before crossing the street.



> quote:
> if you live in a place where that is a rational response to the risk level you are under, move.


Did you follow that link I sent?

That is in RURAL IDAHO you nitwit.

I've lived in inner cities (Chicago, Humbolt part, lakeview, edgewater) where there were gang members dealing drugs on the street, and rural areas where the population density was in the low 10s per square mile, and in BOTH areas, and all in between someone entering your house at night to do ill was a realistic threat.

If you've got children in your home and you've made no effort or plans to protect them YOU are failing.

But you know, should something like Katrina hit where you live, you've probably got a neighbor who "plays with guns", and he'll protect you.

Probably.

I would. If only for the sake of your wife and kids.

(edited for formatting and to add this link):

Oh, and: 
https://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

This could be the last day of the rest of your life


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by petro_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> and yes, exactly the example I was looking for, thank you very much.
> 
> so, do you feel confident enough that:
> 
> 1. at two am somebody wakes you up and you are clear headed and cool enough to exchange fire with them?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> I have (routinely and professionally) been required to roll out of bed at 2 in the morning and solved *much* more complicated problems that shooting some miscreant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:
> 2. that you, woken up from sleep, will be a match for a profetional bad guy, who typically works at night and is has been awake and psyching himself up for this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. This is why I "play" with guns. To develop and maintain the skills and mindset needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:
> 3. that you won't have any accidents at 2 am with the firearm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Training. Training. Training.
> 
> You call it playing, but you have a problem with other people penis sizes, so I'm not not sure you're qualifed to comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:
> 4. that leaving an unlocked, loaded and ready firearm around the house is actually less likly to cause an accidental death than having a stranger kick in the door at 2 am and kill you and your family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My wife knows how to handle firearms, and modern handguns just don't go bang unless you pull the trigger.
> 
> Should we have children things will tighten up a bit, but there is a lot of space between "under the bed" and "field striped in a safe with empty magazines and ammunition in a different part of the house". Unlike the only person you know who admits to having a gun, most of the people in this world are not drunken irresponsible fools, and we can generally evaluate risks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:
> 5. that the firearm that you have is actually the right one for the potential risks that you face, as well as the amunition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The handgun for self defense is the one you've got in your hand. Personally *I* would prefer either a Mossberg Jungle Gun, a Benelli M4, or an full auto M4, but I've yet to acquire a combat shotgun, and pantywaisted ninnies like you have made it illegal for me to own the approiate means of self defense.
> 
> I'm fairly certain that in my hands a 9mm is adquite for anything in my threat model. If it is not, it is fairly certain that .45 would not be much better, and past that you're looking to rifles or shotguns.
> 
> The simple fact is that *any* 30 caliber or higher pistol round (.380 auto, 38 etc.) is mostly inadequite for reliably stopping people. Even the vaunted and much loved .45 has routine failures to stop on the first round. To effectively stop an attacker hell bent on causing you harm you need to RUIN his body.
> 
> To stop some random bad guy you simply need to have something in your hands that goes bang. Most "bad guys" really don't want to kill you, they want your TV, they want your silver and your cash. A .32 is sufficient to disuade them where a "night stick" wielded by a nervous homeowner may just egg them on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:
> keeping a firarm loaded and under the bed is a huge huge mistake. it is an accidental death waiting to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. You've been reading too much fiction. And yes, there are certain doctors who get their articles published in JAMA and NJM who write very convincing fiction.
> 
> Modern firearms DO NOT go off unless you pull the trigger, and while a firearm should be kept out of hte hands of children, they will NOT general defeat a simpler gun lock.
> 
> I don't have children in my home on a routine basis, and on the rare occasion when one is, the loaded gun is secured appropriately for that child's age.
> 
> Children can AND HAVE been trained from very young ages to respect firearms and handle them properly. It's like teaching them to look both ways AND WAIT FOR CLEAR TRAFFIC before crossing the street.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:
> if you live in a place where that is a rational response to the risk level you are under, move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you follow that link I sent?
> 
> That is in RURAL IDAHO you nitwit.
> 
> I've lived in inner cities (Chicago, Humbolt part, lakeview, edgewater) where there were gang members dealing drugs on the street, and rural areas where the population density was in the low 10s per square mile, and in BOTH areas, and all in between someone entering your house at night to do ill was a realistic threat.
> 
> If you've got children in your home and you've made no effort or plans to protect them YOU are failing.
> 
> But you know, should something like Katrina hit where you live, you've probably got a neighbor who "plays with guns", and he'll protect you.
> 
> Probably.
> 
> I would. If only for the sake of your wife and kids.
> 
> (edited for formatting and to add this link):
> 
> Oh, and:
> https://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
> 
> This could be the last day of the rest of your life
Click to expand...

petro - I am sure that you really do think that you know what you are doing. not to get all "resevoir dogs" about it, but the things that you fantasize about doing, I have done. I think it would be difficult for you to begin to concieve of delta in the level of our knowledge of this particular field.

As you may have noticed, if you read this thread well, I do not suggest changing any legeslation concerning firearms (or, I think that more education should be mandated), I suggest that most people, like yourself, are not well enough trained to operate a firearm. it is not only the training, a lot of it has to do with intellegence and coolness, too, but that is another story. I apploud your willingness to train, and I hope that it will be enough.


----------



## FlatSix

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> but keep in mind, if I remember correctly, you were, or are, a profetional racer - bike or motor, sorry I don't remember - this is a lot like us having differing opinions as to a bike or car issue. my opinion on this isn't anywhere near as valuable as yours, when it comes to your profetion.


Actually, my opinion on your individual choice for a vehicle or cycle (I've raced both for some reason, probably a combination of stubbornness and stupidity  ) would not be worth much at all.



> quote:I have trained too large a number of men to remember in how to use firearms at pro level. and I have been in a number of middle of the night firefights. and a lot of my friends happen to be the kind of people who get quoted as "Security experts". this happens to be a subject that we discuss a bit, and seem to have pretty consistant views.


Yes, and most of the pro racers I know are of the opinion that the average citizen should be restricted to an eighty-horsepower hatchback with a giant rubber ring surrounding it. They are wrong, and so are your friends, and the reason is the same - misplaced elitism. The minute the "elite" start to agree that Joe Sixpack can't be trusted with a car or a gun, this country needs another revolution, stat.

Defending your individual life or home has very little to do with infantry or guerilla combat. There's a reason we have a Posse Comitatus (sp) act in this country.

You speak movingly of your baton and your mace. When you are seventy years old, your baton on mace will not avail you of much. You will want something to equalize your ability to resist. Frankly, even today you may not be up to the task of defending yourself with a baton. My workout partner, who is far, far stronger than I am, can bench 435lbs. He is 6'2" and 315lbs himself. I have reasonably advanced training in two different martial arts as well as a fair amount of gloves-off time and I don't even begin to kid myself I could deal with this guy. Now put some PCP into his system and he will rend the average 6'1", weighs-205-and-benches-225 guy in half like tissue paper. Now join him up with a fellow just like him, and run them through your front door, and even the most hardened combat veteran might find himself wishing he had a 1911A1 handy 

We've discussed this before in this thread, but your personal attitude towards guns is almost certainly affected by negative experiences you have had in your life. They're only objects, and they do not have magic or special power. Holding a gun does not make you a man; it also does not make you any less of one.

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

"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## Murrah

Petro:

Thanks for the blog link.


----------



## Murrah

globetrotter:

I do agree with what you've said (many, many times). I hope I don't have to use one of my firearms to defend my family, but I think it borders on criminal negligence not to take adequate steps to safeguard ones family. Those steps vary for each person and family, naturally.

I also think dis-armament of a civilian population is cultural suicide. I am the descendant of centuries of property-owning, armed males of the Anglo-Saxon persuasion. My notion of independence includes the owning of real property and arms, the better to safeguard my family and my liberties. To me, the owning and use of firearms, and teaching of same to my progeny is a continuation of my culture. I believe in my culture and will continue to defend and teach its tenets to my son. The day I become a peasant instead of a freeholder will be a sad day.


----------



## globetrotter

> _Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> Defending your individual life or home has very little to do with infantry or guerilla combat. There's a reason we have a Posse Comitatus (sp) act in this country.
> 
> actually, I believe it does. my argument can be distilled into a pretty simple point - I do not believe that the vast majority of people have it in them to actually use a weapon well when called upon to, and I feel that they should be in a position to do as little harm to themselves, their family and their neighbors while they are deluding themselves about getting ready.
> 
> You speak movingly of your baton and your mace. When you are seventy years old, your baton on mace will not avail you of much. You will want something to equalize your ability to resist. Frankly, even today you may not be up to the task of defending yourself with a baton. My workout partner, who is far, far stronger than I am, can bench 435lbs. He is 6'2" and 315lbs himself. I have reasonably advanced training in two different martial arts as well as a fair amount of gloves-off time and I don't even begin to kid myself I could deal with this guy. Now put some PCP into his system and he will rend the average 6'1", weighs-205-and-benches-225 guy in half like tissue paper. Now join him up with a fellow just like him, and run them through your front door, and even the most hardened combat veteran might find himself wishing he had a 1911A1 handy
> 
> agreed. don't give me an answer, just think about this for a second - how many 300 pound men who bench 400 pounds and are on PCP were involved in home invasions of the tax paying public in your state last year?
> 
> in my county, which is pretty nicely sized, there were two firearm murders in the past 2 years. one was of a teenage black gang member, by another black gang member who had come out from the city and gotten lost. the other was of a taxi driver by a teenager. there was a rape murder - by an iligal immigrant who killed the lady of the house he was painting. in the county over there were 2 home invastions, both of houses of people in the drug trade. that was pretty much the extent of the violent crime. there were about 40 or 50 burglaries, by kids lokking to steal little things. what is the biggest risk to me? 3 or 4 teen age kids breaking into my house in the middle of the night? do I think that I can handle them with my stick? you bet your ass - when the police comes they are going to be amazed at how neatly their legs and arms are broken. do I see any reason to shoot them? no, I don't. more than that, I think that you are underestimating the power of a baton and some tear gas. get yourself a little teargas sometime, do some jumping jacks and get your breath rate and heart rate up, and then pop yourself with it. see how well you function. for sake of argument I will agree that there are pleanty of people I may not be able to take, but I would be suprised if I couldn't down a 300 pound man on pcp between the gas and the stick.
> 
> but that works both ways - if you have a 9 mm hand gun, is it possible that 4 kids with ak47s are going to stand outside your house and empty clips through your walls? sure it is possible, you can always be outgunned. how probable is it?
> 
> and you are right - maybe when I am older I will get myself a firearm, when I think that it is the correct response to the level of threat that I am under.
> 
> We've discussed this before in this thread, but yo
> ur personal attitude towards guns is almost certainly affected by negative experiences you have had in your life.
> 
> I am not sure that is correct - guns have been very very good to me. I don't regret for a second the things that I have done in my life. and there is a good chance that you don;t know any sane person who could kill as easily as me. but what I do have is an extremly good understanding of all the aspects of what is involved. I said this in a similar thread over in SF a few days ago - dead is dead. if you haven't looked in the eyes of somebody as his life slips away, smell him, taste him, maybe you never know what its about. death is pretty final. a lot of people can't kill, and a lot of people do it and then freak out. I don't want to kill anybody over something stupid like my stereo or the change they can find downstairs. and I sure as hell don't want anybody killed by mistake with my weapon.
> 
> there is something very fundemental about firearms, like murrah says, cultural. everybody wants to believe that they are good with them, like in the movies, like being a good lover. well, the bottom line is you are going to find out how good you are when you have to shoot somebody. and at that point, it may be too late to discover you overestimated yourself.
Click to expand...


----------



## FlatSix

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> what is the biggest risk to me? 3 or 4 teen age kids breaking into my house in the middle of the night? do I think that I can handle them with my stick? you bet your ass - when the police comes they are going to be amazed at how neatly their legs and arms are broken. do I see any reason to shoot them? no, I don't.


While your experience of shooting people to death certainly outpaces mine, the above sentence makes me think that my experience of personal injury lawsuits outpaces yours. 

The worst thing you can do in this country is leave your attacker alive to sue you. Ask me how I know (hint: it's why I have a VW and not a Bentley, hee hee).

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

"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> what is the biggest risk to me? 3 or 4 teen age kids breaking into my house in the middle of the night? do I think that I can handle them with my stick? you bet your ass - when the police comes they are going to be amazed at how neatly their legs and arms are broken. do I see any reason to shoot them? no, I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> While your experience of shooting people to death certainly outpaces mine, the above sentence makes me think that my experience of personal injury lawsuits outpaces yours.
> 
> The worst thing you can do in this country is leave your attacker alive to sue you. Ask me how I know (hint: it's why I have a VW and not a Bentley, hee hee).
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> "When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff
> 
> "First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia
> 
> " I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790
Click to expand...

you are very probrably right. well, to each his own. and like I said above, I hope that none of us get a chance to prove ourselves right or wrong in this.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Murrah_
> 
> globetrotter:
> 
> I do agree with what you've said (many, many times). I hope I don't have to use one of my firearms to defend my family, but I think it borders on criminal negligence not to take adequate steps to safeguard ones family. Those steps vary for each person and family, naturally.
> 
> I also think dis-armament of a civilian population is cultural suicide. I am the descendant of centuries of property-owning, armed males of the Anglo-Saxon persuasion. My notion of independence includes the owning of real property and arms, the better to safeguard my family and my liberties. To me, the owning and use of firearms, and teaching of same to my progeny is a continuation of my culture. I believe in my culture and will continue to defend and teach its tenets to my son. The day I become a peasant instead of a freeholder will be a sad day.


I would say this a little differently - the transition from peasant to yeoman came with serving in a military unit. going back at least 5 generations, the men in my family have served in the infantry (and possibly before) to better safeguard our rights and our families and our property and our communities. we are also from the anglo-saxon tradition, although I would say that that tradition did not include bearing arms as civillians before the US existed. I would see your point better if you had chosen that path, as well, frankly.


----------



## Murrah

"would see your point better if you had chosen that path, as well, frankly."

...and how do you know my life story?


----------



## FlatSix

Frankly, I liked this whole "globetrotter" character a little better when he was played by Marlon Brando in _Apocalypse Now._ On a forum devoted to men's clothing, his whole these-hands-have-been-dipped-in-blood-too-many-times-to-ever-again-tie-the-laces-on-a-pair-of-C&J-Weymouths persona tends to grate a bit.

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

"When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff

"First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia

" I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Murrah_
> 
> "would see your point better if you had chosen that path, as well, frankly."
> 
> ...and how do you know my life story?


you are right, and I apologize for any assumptions that I may have made. although, if you have read my posts, I have said, again and again, that the only objection I have is to people who have not bothered to be trained, and have said, again and again, that none of my comments relates to people in the military or as LEO. if you have been trained by proffetionals in the use of your firearms, then any comments that I have made do not relate to you.

I actually spent a little time last night thinking about your post - which I thought was a good answer, but something struck me as falling incorrectly. that was the idea of "anglo-saxon tradition" and the whole "yoeman" vs "peasant" thing. in my opinion, which of course really has no value more than anyone elses, the difference came when the farmer joined in with his community to serve as part of a well regulated militia - just like the farmers in democratic greece, and just like in the early days or various modern republics.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> Frankly, I liked this whole "globetrotter" character a little better when he was played by Marlon Brando in _Apocalypse Now._ On a forum devoted to men's clothing, his whole these-hands-have-been-dipped-in-blood-too-many-times-to-ever-again-tie-the-laces-on-a-pair-of-C&J-Weymouths persona tends to grate a bit.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> "When you wear something like spats, I think you might as well wear your favorite players jersey bc what youre saying is I want to be powerful like the bear and Im wearing its hide to tap into its power." - Film Noir Buff
> 
> "First sense of what "normal" good clothes looked like came from my dad, of course, and from Babar books." - Concordia
> 
> " I have a related problem in that I often have to chase people. Leather soles are no good for this kind of work." - Patrick06790


very possibly - I don't think that we would like each other too much anyway, after reading your "white trash wedding" thread. but such is life.

I went close to 20 years without telling a war story or pretty much talking about my experiences. outside of the dojo, I don't think that I have hurt anybody in more than 10 years. and I would be hard pressed to tell you the last time I touched a firearm.

I do, however, have strong feelings about this particular subject, and, as you can see from pratos posts, and several before, if you do not love guns, or think that everybody should be armed to the teeth, your credibility in this comes into question and the assumption is that you are, as prato discribed, me a "panty waisted ninny".

I have brought my past into this to clarify my experience and where my perspecive comes from. As many of the people I consider my dearest friends come from this kind of experience, and many of them are still in that world as a profetion, and as this is something that we have disuscussed many times among ourselves, I have used that as a form of perspective as well.

I assure you, I am a a relativly jovial, short, fat, middle aged man, like a hell of a lot of the guys I know like me. I wear no camo,, I don't own any non-leathal weapons, it would take me an hour to find an army picture of me, or my old beret. I live a life in the moment.

but, in the same way that if I tried to lecture you on bicycles, you would probrably say "globe, I have ridden more bikes more places than you can imagine", I don't think that you can even comprehend the delta in the level of our knowledge about this particular field. that is not a brag, as I take no particular pride in that. it is simply a statement of fact.


----------



## petro

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> petro - I am sure that you really do think that you know what you are doing. not to get all "resevoir dogs" about it, but the things that you fantasize about doing, I have done. I think it would be difficult for you to begin to concieve of delta in the level of our knowledge of this particular field.


Really?

I don't. I know exactly what my skills and abilities are, this is why I'm not *back* in the Marine Corps.

I *know* there are people an order of magnitude better than me--I've trained with them and learned from them.



> quote:
> As you may have noticed, if you read this thread well, I do not suggest changing any legeslation concerning firearms (or, I think that more education should be mandated), I suggest that most people, like yourself, are not well enough trained to operate a firearm. it is not only the training, a lot of it has to do with intellegence and coolness, too, but that is another story. I apploud your willingness to train, and I hope that it will be enough.


You have NO idea what level of training I've got. YOU, who can't learn to edit down previous posts in a reply, and can't be bothered to use the bleeding SHIFT key have the GALL to question my intellect?

You, who reverted to the "small penis" arguement?

I remain unimpressed.

This could be the last day of the rest of your life
Lenovo and Amazon SUCK:


----------



## petro

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> I have reasonably advanced training in two different martial arts as well as a fair amount of gloves-off time and I don't even begin to kid myself I could deal with this guy. Now put some PCP into his system and he will rend the average 6'1", weighs-205-and-benches-225 guy in half like tissue paper. Now join him up with a fellow just like him, and run them through your front door, and even the most hardened combat veteran might find himself wishing he had a 1911A1 handy


A former instructor of mine was serving a felony warrant on a nutbag down in Santa Clara. He was the point guy, and as he walked through the living room the problem child came around the corner with a FNFAL at the low ready.

The instructor put 5 rounds from his 1911 into the fellows chest at about 5 feet. Most of them were in and right around the heart. The FNFAL kept rising.

One of the other officers put a round from a 12 guage into the guys side. Spun him around like a top and put him into a puddle.

The only think nice about handguns (for self-defense) is that they're easy to keep handy.

In the case you mentioned, I'd be wishing for a handy fire-team. 
[/quote]

This could be the last day of the rest of your life
Lenovo and Amazon SUCK:


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by petro_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> petro - I am sure that you really do think that you know what you are doing. not to get all "resevoir dogs" about it, but the things that you fantasize about doing, I have done. I think it would be difficult for you to begin to concieve of delta in the level of our knowledge of this particular field.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I don't. I know exactly what my skills and abilities are, this is why I'm not *back* in the Marine Corps.
> 
> I *know* there are people an order of magnitude better than me--I've trained with them and learned from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:
> As you may have noticed, if you read this thread well, I do not suggest changing any legeslation concerning firearms (or, I think that more education should be mandated), I suggest that most people, like yourself, are not well enough trained to operate a firearm. it is not only the training, a lot of it has to do with intellegence and coolness, too, but that is another story. I apploud your willingness to train, and I hope that it will be enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NO idea what level of training I've got. YOU, who can't learn to edit down previous posts in a reply, and can't be bothered to use the bleeding SHIFT key have the GALL to question my intellect?
> 
> You, who reverted to the "small penis" arguement?
> 
> I remain unimpressed.
> 
> This could be the last day of the rest of your life
> Lenovo and Amazon SUCK:
Click to expand...

well, petro, flatsix, have a merry christmas.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by petro_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> I have reasonably advanced training in two different martial arts as well as a fair amount of gloves-off time and I don't even begin to kid myself I could deal with this guy. Now put some PCP into his system and he will rend the average 6'1", weighs-205-and-benches-225 guy in half like tissue paper. Now join him up with a fellow just like him, and run them through your front door, and even the most hardened combat veteran might find himself wishing he had a 1911A1 handy
> 
> 
> 
> A former instructor of mine was serving a felony warrant on a nutbag down in Santa Clara. He was the point guy, and as he walked through the living room the problem child came around the corner with a FNFAL at the low ready.
> 
> The instructor put 5 rounds from his 1911 into the fellows chest at about 5 feet. Most of them were in and right around the heart. The FNFAL kept rising.
> 
> One of the other officers put a round from a 12 guage into the guys side. Spun him around like a top and put him into a puddle.
> 
> The only think nice about handguns (for self-defense) is that they're easy to keep handy.
> 
> In the case you mentioned, I'd be wishing for a handy fire-team.
Click to expand...

This could be the last day of the rest of your life
Lenovo and Amazon SUCK:

[/quote]

Petro,

I looked over some of your posts in some other threads, most notibly the rise of uncivility thead. It appears to me that we have caught each other on an issue that we both feel very strongly about, and have very different experiences about, even if perhaps some of those experiences led on similar paths. it accurs to me that on many other issues, we would probrably agree.

I am sure that your experiences led you to believe that most people who shared your background felt the same way you did, and mine did as well. I spend a good chunk of my youth involved in a couple of wars, and then another chunk of my youth involved in some other activities that are not exactly on the sunday school curriculum. and most of my friends from this background believe similarly to how I do on this issue. you have your basket of experiences, and I am sure that most of your friends who share your experiences feel similar to you.

you didn't bother to read most of my posts before posting, I am guessing. And I was quick to judge the tone of your post, based on my experience.

in any event, have a merry christmas.


----------



## GentleCheetah

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> Nor do many garbagemen collect miniature garbage trucks, I suspect. *But all you are saying is that firearms are bound up in your mind with unpleasantries, and that your friends choose not to take their work home with them*.


This is the best humor I've seen for a long time.

The Gentle Cheetah


----------



## Fogey

What? 137 consecutive internet posts about firearms and no third reich analogies? Congratulations, gentlemen! 

Andy and Malinda, you should be proud! This may qualify for Guinness...

Very entertaining and informative thread.


----------



## Trenditional

> quote:_Originally posted by TimmyMac_
> 
> Globetrotter,
> 
> 4. I keep my firearm in a fireproof safe, unloaded, chamber open, with a steel cable lock through the action. I keep my ammunition in a separate location. This is how the MAJORITY of gun owners store their weapons. What you read in the media about unsafe firearm storage is representative of a small portion of the gun owning populace, which is being publicized by the anti-gun crown as a scare tatic.
> 
> TM


What good is this Gun (firearm is so Politically Correct) doing you separated from the ammunition, locked in Fort Knox? All you are doing is verifying that in case of an emergency this gun is unavailable to you and thus useless. Therefore, why have it?


----------



## MR MILLER

Trenditional said:


> What good is this Gun (firearm is so Politically Correct) doing you separated from the ammunition, locked in Fort Knox? All you are doing is verifying that in case of an emergency this gun is unavailable to you and thus useless. Therefore, why have it?


I agree i keep mine loaded on the nightstand next to the bed, this is the way i was tought, and for a long time i lived in a very very bad neighborhood so i also had a remington pump under the bed and an AK 47 in my closet i know it sounds like a little over kill but the things i have seen in life will make you think twice about your safety


----------



## JJR512

What a wonderfully antique thread to bring up! More than four years since last post prior to Mr. Miller's.

I think guns are cool, but not in the same way that many others do. Rather, I am fascinated by the mechanical intricacy of the design, much in the same way that I am with mechanical cameras, mechanical clocks and watches, car engines, etc.

I have contemplated building an Old West dress outfit (see Will Smith in Wild Wild West). To compliment this outfit, I would add a gun, possibly two, in period-inspired leather holsters. What I haven't yet decided, though, is if I would go with a period gun (Colt Peacemaker, naturally), or give the whole outfit a modern twist by using modern guns. Dual Beretta 92FS in stainless, anyone? Oh yeah. (This has the added benefit that two Beretta 92FS guns are less expensive than just one single Peacemaker, whether 3rd-party replica, a modern Colt reissue, or an authentic collectible.)


----------



## Birniguy

*I learned something in this thread*

I stumbled across it look ig for advice on putting rubber soles on leather shoes. Not sure of the link between the topics.

Globetrotter, I found your comments to be well reasoned and well stated, and I appreciate a person of seemingly considerable experience taking the time to relay considered thoughts. I've met maybe one or two people with such experience (both SEALS) but neither talked much about it, nor would it be something that would come up so easily. So learning is always valuable, more so from experts, and thank you.

I do not own a firearm and doubt I ever will, but I'll think a lot about the general advice in your comments. I do have fire extinguishers, alarms, etc.

Best
Birni


----------



## Howard

I myself will never own a gun,It's best to just stay away from them.


----------



## Martinis at 8

I enjoy my firearms.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> I myself will never own a gun,It's best to just stay away from them.


Never say never. It's funny how opinions change with time. Remember the things you wouldn't eat as a kid, but love now.


----------



## Howard

Apatheticviews said:


> Never say never. It's funny how opinions change with time. Remember the things you wouldn't eat as a kid, but love now.


But our family isn't violent, we're not going to buy guns because we don't want our neighbors to think we're a gun owning family we never lived that way.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> But our family isn't violent, we're not going to buy guns because we don't want our neighbors to think we're a gun owning family we never lived that way.


Owning a gun doesn't make you violent. I'm a peace loving man myself. I doubt any of the other gun owners of this forum are violent men either. I doubt you are a violent man, and if you came into possession of a gun, you wouldn't instantly become one.

As for your neighbors, they don't need to know you own guns, and if they do know, who cares what they think. If they are going to judge you based on something as simple as something you own (that isn't another sentient being), do you really want them as your neighbors? Or to associate with them at all?

How do you live "that way," anyways? With 100 million guns in the US (average owner having 4 guns), that means 1 in 12 people have a gun. That's not just Red or Blue. That's solid dispersement throughout the US.


----------



## Howard

> How do you live "that way," anyways? With 100 million guns in the US (average owner having 4 guns), that means 1 in 12 people have a gun. That's not just Red or Blue. That's solid dispersement throughout the US.


What I mean is I don't live in violence,I always lived in peace and my neighborhood isn't a violent neighborhood, It's pretty quiet,It's not loud or raucous,It's a pretty friendly neighborhood.

I want our neighborhrs to respect us.


----------



## Regillus

Ok; well said. But what if you're confronted with a dangerous situation? What do you do then? A pistol is a special-purpose tool designed to protect and defend your life in a life-threatening situation. So why not have one in case you need it?


----------



## Howard

Regillus said:


> Ok; well said. But what if you're confronted with a dangerous situation? What do you do then? A pistol is a special-purpose tool designed to protect and defend your life in a life-threatening situation. So why not have one in case you need it?


You know Regilus never thought about that. Maybe you're right.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
......and alas, if we might take Regillus' response just a bit further, I'm not sure pacifism is mankind's natural state. It seems competition and conflict are a very real part of our basic nature, survival of the fitest and all that. While I may be a religious man and do ferverently hope that someday "the meek shall inherit the earth," truth be known, experience tells me that SunTzsu was right in observing that "we must sweat more in peace, so that we might bleed less in war!" This seems true, all the way down to the level of the individual.

Howard: Get a gym membership; take some martial arts classes; firearms can be a plus, given the proper personal preparation; prepare yourself to take care of you and yours and then, and only then might might you sleep most peacefully at night!


----------



## Apatheticviews

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> ......and alas, if we might take Regillus' response just a bit further, I'm not sure pacifism is mankind's natural state. It seems competition and conflict are a very real part of our basic nature, survival of the fitest and all that. While I may be a religious man and do ferverently hope that someday "the meek shall inherit the earth," truth be known, experience tells me that SunTzsu was right in observing that "we must sweat more in peace, so that we might bleed less in war!" This seems true, all the way down to the level of the individual.
> 
> Howard: Get a gym membership; take some martial arts classes; firearms can be a plus, given the proper personal preparation; prepare yourself to take care of you and yours and then, and only then might might you sleep most peacefully at night!


To expand.

Predators target the weakest of the tribe. Whether a wolf and deer or man vs. man. Purposely removing a set of tools to deal with said predators... It would be like removing the deer's senses and running speed. For man, it's our intellect and adaptive weaponry (weapons are more than guns & knives).

Most people have no intention to do each other harm (directly). Against those who do, reason and diplomacy do not work. The first rule of the predator is "The easy kill is the only kill." Make yourself hard less easy, at least in perception. Let the predator look for weaker prey.


----------



## Regillus

eagle2250 said:


> ...take some martial arts classes; firearms can be a plus, given the proper personal preparation....


I took karate for two years; from age 16-18. Went twice a week to a dojo and practiced, practiced, practiced. It was very helpful. It increased my confidence in threatening situations and taught me how to watch how a guy moves to see if he really knows how to fight. It has helped me deal with loudmouth blusterers who act like they're good fighters but aren't.


----------



## Howard

> Howard: Get a gym membership; take some martial arts classes; firearms can be a plus, given the proper personal preparation; prepare yourself to take care of you and yours and then, and only then might might you sleep most peacefully at night!


If I did I would have to go on my days off I'm still a cartguy at Pathmark and I never know what days off they're gonna give me.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> If I did I would have to go on my days off I'm still a cartguy at Pathmark and I never know what days off they're gonna give me.


Do mornings when you work evenings, and evenings when you work days. Go hard (or long) on your days off. I was able to train for a full marathon while working 5-6 days a week retail (35-40 hour work), with a 1-2 hour (each way) commute. It's tough, but it's doable. The gym actually makes it easier.


----------



## Regillus

Howard said:


> If I did I would have to go on my days off I'm still a cartguy at Pathmark and I never know what days off they're gonna give me.


When I attended karate school the school sessions were always at night. So if you work days then you could attend school at night. It was twice a week; Tuesdays and Thursdays.


----------



## Howard

Apatheticviews said:


> Do mornings when you work evenings, and evenings when you work days. Go hard (or long) on your days off. I was able to train for a full marathon while working 5-6 days a week retail (35-40 hour work), with a 1-2 hour (each way) commute. It's tough, but it's doable. The gym actually makes it easier.


I don't know I don't have much time in the mornings when I have an afternoon shift I leave my house at 1015am, plus I'm tired when I get home, pushing carts takes it's toll on me.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> I don't know I don't have much time in the mornings when I have an afternoon shift I leave my house at 1015am, plus I'm tired when I get home, pushing carts takes it's toll on me.


We're talking an hour at a pop, and the gym will have a shower available usually. Basically, just get up at the same time you would when you do the morning shift to hit the gym, and shower/change there, and head to work directly from there. The hardest part is the first couple of weeks. After that, it becomes part of your normal routine, and it's easy to maintain.


----------



## blue suede shoes

Howard said:


> I don't know I don't have much time in the mornings when I have an afternoon shift I leave my house at 1015am, plus I'm tired when I get home, pushing carts takes it's toll on me.


Apatheticviews is right; it can easily be worked into your schedule. Twenty years ago when I was 38, I took karate lessons two evenings a week, Tuesday and Thursday, just like Regillus stated above. Before you sign up for lessons, you should casually mention your desire to take lessons a couple of nights a week to your supervisor so that when he makes up the schedule he can take this into consideration, instead of thinking that you don't want to work, or are looking to get out of work.


----------



## JohnRov

Howard said:


> I don't know I don't have much time in the mornings when I have an afternoon shift I leave my house at 1015am, plus I'm tired when I get home, pushing carts takes it's toll on me.


That's more than enough time. When I was in grad school I would get up at 6, run or workout, go to work, then go to class until 10. Exercise will actually give you more energy.


----------



## Howard

JohnRov said:


> That's more than enough time. When I was in grad school I would get up at 6, run or workout, go to work, then go to class until 10. Exercise will actually give you more energy.


I think maybe I have to change my schedule around, I've had the same one for years.


----------



## dba

Some time before I retired, I had the opportunity to attend a lecture given by LTC Dave Grossman; a soldier and author of a book entitled, "On Killing." The audience was all police officers and part of his presentation dealt with police officers as being sheepdogs in a world full of sheep, wolves and sheepdogs. Broken down, it is I believe; a somewhat simplistic view and I won't take the band width to print it. It's here if you want to read it. It's long so be advised. https://www.mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

I will however, provide something I read and kept. I don't know the author, but I do know that sometimes an armed society is a polite society.

Why I Carry a Gun

I don't carry a gun to kill people. 
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people. 
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. 
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil. 
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government. 
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry. 
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. 
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy. 
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man. 
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate. 
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it. 
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take an ass whoopin'.

As a retired police officer I can tell you this: Police protection is an oxymoron. Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess. Remember when seconds count, the police are only minutes away! Free citizens must protect themselves.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Outstanding! Points well made and a very thought provoking (positive thoughts) perspective! :thumbs-up:


----------



## Chouan

This https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17438627 https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/20/trayvon-martin-death-phone-call?newsfeed=true 
suggests that your views 
"I don't carry a gun to kill people. 
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people. 
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. 
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world."

Are somewhat flawed in some cases.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate

Chouan said:


> This https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17438627 https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/20/trayvon-martin-death-phone-call?newsfeed=true
> suggests that your views
> "I don't carry a gun to kill people.
> I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
> 
> I don't carry a gun to scare people.
> I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
> 
> I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
> I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world."
> 
> Are somewhat flawed in some cases.


Well, I'd say the poem is the ideal, and anybody who agrees with every point on it is a person I'd trust with a gun. There are people who do things for the wrong reason. There are prejudiced guys with a screw loose who buy guns because they want to shoot them at people, or because they think their right to carry a gun extends to a right to use a gun to enforce the law when there's no threat to them. I suppose you could use them as an argument for more people carrying guns.

I personally don't see myself carrying a handgun in the foreseeable future, but as a Quaker I would feel uncomfortable carrying something potentially lethal.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Chouan said:


> This https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17438627 https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/20/trayvon-martin-death-phone-call?newsfeed=true
> suggests that your views
> "I don't carry a gun to kill people.
> I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
> 
> I don't carry a gun to scare people.
> I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
> 
> I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
> I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world."
> 
> Are somewhat flawed in some cases.


I don't think anyone was arguing that everyone who carries a gun believes in, or lives by, those things.

Also, the Trayvon shooting was clearly a terrible tragedy. But it's awfully early for anyone to reach conclusions on exactly what happened (and whether the stand-your-ground law even makes a difference in the legal analysis). One thing being a practicing lawyer has taught me is that figuring out precise chains of events, and the intent of people involved in those events, is a lot more difficult than people seem to think, and can virtually never be done accurately based on initial news reports.


----------



## hardline_42

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> I personally don't see myself carrying a handgun in the foreseeable future, but as a Quaker I would feel uncomfortable carrying something potentially lethal.


YR, do you drive a car? Use a lawnmower? Own a hammer? Have household cleaning supplies? Keep knives in your kitchen?

All of these things are potentially lethal, and it's not a stretch of the imagination to see any of these things causing harm or even death when used improperly. A firearm is no different. It doesn't have any magical properties that make it more lethal than any other tool if used incorrectly.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate

hardline_42 said:


> YR, do you drive a car? Use a lawnmower? Own a hammer? Have household cleaning supplies? Keep knives in your kitchen?
> 
> All of these things are potentially lethal, and it's not a stretch of the imagination to see any of these things causing harm or even death when used improperly. A firearm is no different. It doesn't have any magical properties that make it more lethal than any other tool if used incorrectly.


No to a distressingly large number of those, but I see your point. I also didn't say I'd object to owning a firearm, I said I wouldn't carry a handgun for self-defense. A gun is a tool, and most tools (everything on your list) falls into the category of "It's perfectly safe as long as you remember how dangerous it is." That's not my interpretation. Perhaps I didn't describe my reasoning properly.

To my interpretation, the point of carrying a handgun is to use it to, basically, to threaten those who threaten you. I'm not comfortable with that at this point in my life. That may change, whether as a result of circumstances around me changing or my attitude.


----------



## Chouan

The difference is that a gun, especially a hand gun, is designed solely to shoot people. It has no other purpose. Knives, cars, hammers etc are designed to do other things and _*can*_ be lethal if misused. A gun has no other purpose.


----------



## Mike Petrik

CuffDaddy said:


> I don't think anyone was arguing that everyone who carries a gun believes in, or lives by, those things.
> 
> Also, the Trayvon shooting was clearly a terrible tragedy. But it's awfully early for anyone to reach conclusions on exactly what happened (and whether the stand-your-ground law even makes a difference in the legal analysis). One thing being a practicing lawyer has taught me is that figuring out precise chains of events, and the intent of people involved in those events, is a lot more difficult than people seem to think, and can virtually never be done accurately based on initial news reports.


Cuff is absolutely right, but that is not going to stop people from passionately holding and expressing opinions unencumbered by actual facts.


----------



## Howard

Chouan said:


> The difference is that a gun, especially a hand gun, is designed solely to shoot people. It has no other purpose. Knives, cars, hammers etc are designed to do other things and _*can*_ be lethal if misused. A gun has no other purpose.


agreeable.


----------



## Chouan

Mike Petrik said:


> Cuff is absolutely right, but that is not going to stop people from passionately holding and expressing opinions unencumbered by actual facts.


Which facts are these?
Was the 17 year old unarmed?
Was the perpetrator armed with a concealed weapon?
Did Zimmeman shoot the lad?
Did he claim self-defence?
Could he have shot him if he didn't legally have a gun?
Did the law in Florida allow him to shoot a 17 year old with impunity?
Is it reasonable to allow somebody to shoot and kill a youth because he didn't like the look of him?
Does this episode make you proud of your country?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

I was thinking about this this morning. Man controlling deadly machine, holding the power of said machine in his hand, releasing deadly power by pulling the trigger. Man has always wanted to control power and energy through complex machinery, ever since the invention of the aeolipile a.ka. Hero Engine, (steam powered ball) in ancient Greece. I think is is mostly a male thing - cars, bikes, weapons, planes, tools, even computers - power controlled by man in machinery.


----------



## hardline_42

Chouan said:


> The difference is that a gun, especially a hand gun, is designed solely to shoot people. It has no other purpose. Knives, cars, hammers etc are designed to do other things and _*can*_ be lethal if misused. A gun has no other purpose.


This is, of course, completely untrue. Guns are designed to launch a projectile from a barrel. That's it. While some may have a specific design intent (target shooting/accuracy, hunting, defense) whatever purpose assigned to them is chosen by the user, not the tool. Ever hear of combat knives? Hummers? Defense hammers? There are versions of the items you mentioned that have been specifically designed with defense in mind and yet, no one bats an eye at their existence.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

hardline_42 said:


> This is, of course, completely untrue. Guns are designed to launch a projectile from a barrel. That's it.


Okay, if you look at it from that perspective, let's take it to the next logical question then:

Q: what is the projectile from, especially a pistol, sub-machine gun or assault rifle, designed to do?

A: Injure or kill humans. OR in the case of hunting rifles and shotguns, kill animals.

In other words, projectiles from firearms are designed for one purpose and one purpose only, to kill.


----------



## VictorRomeo

hardline_42 said:


> This is, of course, completely untrue. Guns are designed to launch a projectile from a barrel. That's it.


That's a rather tenuous argument. You highlight hunting and defense as a specific design element but humanity seeks to adopt and adapt. Always has. Weapons(not specifically firearms) for such purposes have helt a valid place for sure. So add the yang of conflict and crime to your ying and you have a situation where in the wrong hands - and as we've seen, there are an awful lot of those - mayhem and the consequense of purpose comes through.

I'm lucky to live in a place where firearms are for the most part illegal. Rifles and pistols are severly restriced. If found in possession one would spend an awful long time in prison. Even fakes and imitations. Our Police do no carry sidearms - special detective units and anti-terrorist units do in fairness but they are significant minority. Of course organised criminal elements will have access to illegal firearms. But your common or garden average scumbag won't.

That's the difference.

This incident in Florida is quite appaling really. Sure, we don;t really know what happend that resulted in a trigger pulled.... But we do know a respected and reportedly good kid went to the store to get some treats for his brother. We know a guy from neighbourhood watch did not like the look of this kid and called it in. He was told not to engage, yet he did. He was know to have desired a position in the police force. He was told(in induction as it's a defined process we learn) that in no way shold he have a fire arm, let alone engage. He followed, confronted and shot and killed a kid. Who was carrying Skittles.

I just don't get it.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Thankfully, I also live in a country where the only people allowed to carry loaded firearms are the police. Not even the military in Sweden are allowed to have loaded firearms in public. And hunters have to transport their rifles unloaded and in locked cases to and from the hunting area; none of this rifle rack behind the seat of your pickup nonsense!


----------



## VictorRomeo

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Thankfully, I also live in a country where the only people allowed to carry loaded firearms are the police. Not even the military in Sweden are allowed to have loaded firearms in public. And hunters have to transport their rifles unloaded and in locked cases to and from the hunting area; none of this rifle rack behind the seat of your pickup nonsense!


I should add that to own a shotgun you must have land or have a land owner act as guarantor. Your local Police Sargeant must also sign your permit. Otherwise serious jailtime. The bottom line is we have no gun culture here are we are the better for it. It's funny. When I travel, I alway find it really intimidating to see police officers on the beat with sidearms and automatic weapons.


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Okay, if you look at it from that perspective, let's take it to the next logical question then:
> 
> Q: what is the projectile from, especially a pistol, sub-machine gun or assault rifle, designed to do?
> 
> A: Injure or kill humans. OR in the case of hunting rifles and shotguns, kill animals.
> 
> In other words, projectiles from firearms are designed for one purpose and one purpose only, to kill.


Again, this is not true. There are plenty of bullet profiles that are designed for one purpose: to cleanly punch a hole in a target (wad-cutters, for example). There are also tracer rounds that serve to illuminate a projectile's trajectory for the purpose of accuracy.

We can keep arguing the minutiae of firearms and firearms paraphernalia, but the difference between us lies in a single point of contention: you seem to think that killing is ALWAYS bad while I accept the sad fact that, sometimes, stuff needs killing.

You can chose to be offended by that comment, or you can look a little further into the reasoning behind it. No amount of moral posturing is going to stop someone bent on doing you harm, only force. In such a situation, I'd prefer to have the best tool for the job at my disposal.


----------



## hardline_42

VictorRomeo said:


> That's a rather tenuous argument. You highlight hunting and defense as a specific design element but humanity seeks to adopt and adapt. Always has. Weapons(not specifically firearms) for such purposes have helt a valid place for sure. So add the yang of conflict and crime to your ying and you have a situation where in the wrong hands - and as we've seen, there are an awful lot of those - mayhem and the consequense of purpose comes through.


Such is the case with all technology. Can you name a single invention in the history of mankind, meant for the "good of humanity," that hasn't been used for evil shortly thereafter?


----------



## Mike Petrik

Chouan said:


> Which facts are these?
> Was the 17 year old unarmed?
> Was the perpetrator armed with a concealed weapon?
> Did Zimmeman shoot the lad?
> Did he claim self-defence?
> Could he have shot him if he didn't legally have a gun?
> Did the law in Florida allow him to shoot a 17 year old with impunity?
> Is it reasonable to allow somebody to shoot and kill a youth because he didn't like the look of him?
> Does this episode make you proud of your country?


I rest my case.


----------



## JohnRov

Earl of Ormonde said:


> In other words, projectiles from firearms are designed for one purpose and one purpose only, to kill.


Not true. I would estimate that the number of rounds fired by the civilian population for recreation or competition dwarfs the number of rounds fired for self-defense or for crimes by orders of magnitude.


----------



## JohnRov

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Thankfully, I also live in a country where the only people allowed to carry loaded firearms are the police.


The police? The police here are among the most incompetent population with guns we have (I'm sure elsewhere as well). Most never fire their guns other than for a basic once a year qualification. My brother-in-law is full-time SWAT and considers running the range during yearly qualification the most dangerous part of his job.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

hardline_42 said:


> Such is the case with all technology. Can you name a single invention in the history of mankind, meant for the "good of humanity," that hasn't been used for evil shortly thereafter?


Yes, the bicycle.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

VictorRomeo said:


> I should add that to own a shotgun you must have land or have a land owner act as guarantor. Your local Police Sargeant must also sign your permit. Otherwise serious jailtime.


Same in the UK.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

hardline_42 said:


> you seem to think that killing is ALWAYS bad.


Show me where I said that? Don't infer from my text that that is my view.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

hardline_42 said:


> You can chose to be offended by that comment.


Nothing there to be offended by.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

JohnRov said:


> The police? The police here are among the most incompetent population with guns we have (I'm sure elsewhere as well). Most never fire their guns other than for a basic once a year qualification. My brother-in-law is full-time SWAT and considers running the range during yearly qualification the most dangerous part of his job.


The police? Yes, the police
Here? You're assuming I'm in the US, I'm not.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

And no amount of arguing that firearms are needed for self-defence or for scaring mountain lion or for target practice reduces the fact that firearms are designed and made for one purpose - discharging a projectile from the barrel to do harm to a human. 

Most targets I've seen at gun clubs are in the form of a person.


If no one had legal access to guns then the need to defend against them wouldn't exist.


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Yes, the bicycle.


Is that so?


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Show me where I said that? Don't infer from my text that that is my view.


I apologize if I assumed too much. Most people I encounter who have a problem with guns "designed for killing" operate under the assumption that killing is not a worthy purpose.


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> And no amount of arguing that firearms are needed for self-defence or for scaring mountain lion or for target practice reduces the fact that firearms are designed and made for one purpose - discharging a projectile from the barrel to do harm to a human.


You say that like it's a bad thing. I said it before and I'll say it again. Sometimes, stuff needs killing. That includes humans. Specifically, when they are bent on causing harm to me and mine, flight is not an option and reason has fallen on deaf ears. Why is that such a horrible thing to come to grips with?


----------



## JohnRov

Earl of Ormonde said:


> And no amount of arguing that firearms are needed for self-defence or for scaring mountain lion or for target practice reduces the fact that firearms are designed and made for one purpose - discharging a projectile from the barrel to do harm to a human.
> 
> Most targets I've seen at gun clubs are in the form of a person.
> 
> If no one had legal access to guns then the need to defend against them wouldn't exist.


Millions of clay targets are shattered every year, millions of rounds are shot in bench rest and other games at circular targets.

The need to defend with a firearm isn't predicated on the need to defend against another firearm, it is based on the desire to protect oneself against a threat. It's not supposed to be fair. If someone holds me up with a knife I am not obliged to defend myself with a like weapon, that's foolish.


----------



## JohnRov

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The police? Yes, the police
> Here? You're assuming I'm in the US, I'm not.


I didn't assume that, but unless shown otherwise i am not inclined to believe even other civilian police forces are very well trained with firearms.


----------



## Bjorn

JohnRov said:


> Millions of clay targets are shattered every year, millions of rounds are shot in bench rest and other games at circular targets.
> 
> The need to defend with a firearm isn't predicated on the need to defend against another firearm, it is based on the desire to protect oneself against a threat. It's not supposed to be fair. If someone holds me up with a knife I am not obliged to defend myself with a like weapon, that's foolish.


If someone holds you up with a knife, give them your money and reclaim on insurance? Seems easier...


----------



## Regillus

There is a problem with Zimmerman's claim of "self-defense." Zimmerman WENT AFTER 17-year old Martin. You can't approach or chase after someone and then claim that you were "standing your ground." There's no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman was overzealous in his response to the situation. A guy walking by "looks suspicious?" Lots of people walk by. I've no doubt that Zimmerman's a racist - I should remind everyone that I grew up in Florida, so I know what the people there are like. Zimmerman displayed the typical disregard for the lives of black people that's commonly found among racists. Zimmerman is now attempting to take advantage of the fact that there were no witnesses to the events to manufacture a story favorable to him - "self-defense." The falsity of the claim is obvious from the outset. Zimmerman was on the phone with police. He reported a suspicious person. Police were on the way. Now if at this point Zimmerman had STAYED where he was then nothing would have happened - Martin would have walked on by. Zimmerman decided to GO AFTER Martin; thus negating any appeal to a "stand your ground" defense. Zimmerman should be charged with; at a minimum; manslaughter, and second-degree murder might not be too much of a stretch. I always hate reading about these things. Black guy walking by; gets shot by a non-black person for nothing more than being there, and then an insufficient response on the part of the police. I'm glad the feds are investigating and I hope serious criminal charges are brought against Zimmerman for his heinous disregard for human life.


----------



## MacTweed

I know I am entering this discussion a bit late...





Bjorn said:


> If someone holds you up with a knife, give them your money and reclaim on insurance? Seems easier...




A few points to ponder
1. Why should someone have to make any insurance claim? A person has a right to defend him/herself. Why should a person be intimidated into handing over one's possessions? Is not that person entitled to keep his/her possessions? Why should some thug, simply because he/she has a knife or weapon, be entitled to another's possessions?


2. It is not always the case that people are after money. Sometimes, people are simply evil and out to cause harm. Examine the Petit family home invasion case. 


3. Sometimes firearms can stop crime without the shedding of any blood. I experienced this first hand about 5 years ago. Past midnight my wife and I were sitting on the couch talking. Someone had entered my back patio and was trying to gain access into my house. Obviously, the house was occupied as there were 2 cars in the driveway and the house lights were on. I could have called the cops, but instead I dashed to my room to grab my pistol (the cops would have been at least 5 minutes out, and this was on a military base). Running to the back door I chambered a round (semi-auto pistol). That loud sound scared off the would-be intruder and kept my family safe. Were I to not have the firearm that night, who knows what might have happened? To further add to this person's lack of fear, he was not scared off by my German Shepherd (who was inside with us) barking. But he was scared off by the sound of my firearm. Should I have allowed the insurance to cover anything he desired to take? No. I do not know what the person's motives were, but had he entered my house, Castle Doctrine would have applied.


For plenty of true scenarios just like the one I described, or often cases where lives were saved by the firing of a weapon, see .


----------



## mommatook1

Bjorn said:


> If someone holds you up with a knife, give them your money and reclaim on insurance? Seems easier...


Money, possessions? Sure. But there are certainly things you can't reclaim on insurance, such as a savage beating or a rape, or worse.

This Zimmerman guy will go down eventually, there's no way you can get around the fact that he instigated the confrontation.


----------



## P Hudson

Regillus said:


> I've no doubt that Zimmerman's a racist - I should remind everyone that I grew up in Florida, so I know what the people there are like. Zimmerman displayed the typical disregard for the lives of black people that's commonly found among racists. Zimmerman is now attempting to take advantage of the fact that there were no witnesses to the events to manufacture a story favorable to him - "self-defense."


Now it seems he is even trying to take advantage of the fact that he isn't white, and that he apparently has black members of his own family!

It is a bit frustrating to discuss the place of guns in US society when time after time crime goes down when gun restrictions are loosened.


----------



## Howard

mommatook1 said:


> Money, possessions? Sure. But there are certainly things you can't reclaim on insurance, such as a savage beating or a rape, or worse.
> 
> This Zimmerman guy will go down eventually, there's no way you can get around the fact that he instigated the confrontation.


I'd rather give them my money, my life is much more important in that situation.


----------



## andy b.

To all of you who have already convicted Zimmerman, the police are now interviewing a witness who says Zimmerman was attacked first. You may want to hold off on that conviction until all of the evidence is presented, lest you appear to act stupidly.

As for guns, I have a few. They were originally designed to kill things. I make no apologies for owning something designed to kill. That bothers some people. It doesn't bother me.

Andy B.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

hardline_42 said:


> Is that so?


That's a stretch, and you know it.

I was keeping to civil society. If you cite the military as you have just done then it can suiccessfully be argued that not just the bicycle but every single item of civilian life has been used for evil from socks, shoes, trousers, and jackets to pens, telephones, frying pans and spectacles.

Military personnel carry weapons as a matter of course every day. Most civilians worldwide don't. 
Millions of civilians use bicycles as a matter of course every day. Most military personnel worldwide don't.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

JohnRov said:


> but unless shown otherwise i am not inclined to believe even other civilian police forces are very well trained with firearms.


I didn't realise you were an expert on the firearms training of the thousands of police forces globally. What police forces have you done firearms training with to come to such a conclusion?

I can only speak for the firearms training of the police forces I have worked with and those I have been on a firing range with, where firearms training was extremely rigorous and professional.


----------



## Chouan

andy b. said:


> To all of you who have already convicted Zimmerman, the police are now interviewing a witness who says Zimmerman was attacked first. You may want to hold off on that conviction until all of the evidence is presented, lest you appear to act stupidly.
> 
> As for guns, I have a few. They were originally designed to kill things. I make no apologies for owning something designed to kill. That bothers some people. It doesn't bother me.
> 
> Andy B.


What, attacked with a packet of sweets? Perhaps the murdered 17 year old looked at him in a funny way, surely that deserves death?!
Zimmerman is recorded saying words to the effect that "they always get away", he then pursues the victim, despite being told not to, and then kills him in "self-defence". Curious that the witness didn't appear until the law itself is challenged.
It rather looks to me that you're defending the indefensible on the dubious principle that it's alright to shoot people if you feel like it.


----------



## Tilton

P Hudson said:


> It is a bit frustrating to discuss the place of guns in US society when time after time crime goes down when gun restrictions are loosened.


This is on point. When gun restrictions are tightened in the US, the only group that it harms are those who buy guns through the straight and narrow legal avenues. Do you think the neighborhood crack dealer went down to Gander Mountain with his driver's license and voter ID card to buy that .40 compact? No. Did my 88 year old grandfather with Parkinson's? Yes. The problem isn't the availability of guns through for those seeking to use acceptable methods of obtaining them, the problem is with the vast number of illegally obtained weapons.

Also, call me calloused, but I don't think one bad apple should spoil the bunch. Yes, there are people who shouldn't have guns but do, and got them legally. But that shouldn't be cause the infringe on my right to protect myself. There are plenty of people who shouldn't be given a driver's license and are, but it doesn't mean you should not be able to drive your car. Some guy with 20/400 vision plows into another car, killing the other driver and there aren't anti-drivers with poor vision lobbies shouting from the rooftops about how the federal government should step in and issue unfunded mandates that require that every driver must install an automated vision test, wired to the ignition of his car to prove his fitness of driving every time he wants to pick up a gallon of milk. But then, you still face the issue of all of the drivers who do not have driver's licenses or even proof of identification and much less, insurance. You pass a basic vision test when you get your license, just like you pass a basic criminal background check to buy a gun, but there will always be people who circumvent the right way of doing something because the legal method won't allow them access to whatever the privilege, and there will always be people who follow all the right routes and then abuse their rights. That's just how it is.


----------



## Ekphrastic

Howard said:


> I'd rather give them my money, my life is much more important in that situation.


Sure. However, as some people have stated, there are people out there who want to do more than just rob you. A colleague of mine had a friend who was murdered during a robbery; the victim gave the robbers (there were two of them) everything they wanted. They killed her, anyway. (If I remember correctly, the robbery was over; the robbers were behind her; they shot her in the back.)

In this particular instance, there are many what-ifs that we can ask. What if the police had seen the robbery happening? What if someone had called the police and they'd arrived sooner? What if our society hadn't created whatever conditions that contributed to the two robbers' decision? What if guns weren't so easily available to criminals on the black market? Even if the victim had had a gun, would she have been able to survive a gunfight against two armed kids? (They were fourteen-year-old boys. Their mothers eventually turned them in.) What if innocent people had been caught in the crossfire?

However, none of that mattered during the confrontation. If she'd had a gun, she would have had a chance at life.


----------



## eagle2250

For a period of approximately 32 years I carried a variety of firearms and other less lethal weapons in both military and law enforcement roles and since my retirement from both roles I have carried a sidearm on at most a half dozen occassions. I find it almost a luxury to go out without a sidearm tucked in some sort of holster and secreted on my person. It's kinda nice not having the butt of a gun pressing into my back, ribcage, wherever! I must also confess befuddlement over the almost rabid fascination with carryng weapons, that seems so widespread. Our's are mean streets and there are threats aplenty that must be acknowledged, dealt with and yes, occassionally be claimed as justification for arming onesself. However, deadly force is not always a necessary, nor a prudent counter to such threats. Certainly, there will always be the occassional set of circunstances that justify the carriage of and potentially the use of a sidearm, but just as certainly, that need is way, way overstated and in most instances that weapons are discharged, other more prudent options were overlooked along the path that lead to those weapons discharges!


----------



## Regillus

andy b. said:


> To all of you who have already convicted Zimmerman, the police are now interviewing a witness who says Zimmerman was attacked first. You may want to hold off on that conviction until all of the evidence is presented, lest you appear to act stupidly.
> 
> Andy B.


These reports are leaks coming from within the police dept. There's nothing solid to back them up. We need to see the actual evidence. Zimmerman SAYS Martin attacked him. A convenient explanation to justify the shooting? Someone in the police dept. SAYS there's a witness. Let's see this witness so we can hear his story and evaluate it's credibility. Are people who are sympathetic to Zimmermans attempts to police the neighborhood making up witness accounts in an effort to protect one of their own? After all; it was just a black kid who got shot; who cares about that? If Zimmerman had just stayed where he was; none of this would have happened.


----------



## andy b.

I'm not defending Zimmerman. I'm just saying there appears to be more to this story. Afterall, the court of public opinion would have convicted OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony of murder.

Andy B.


----------



## Apatheticviews

eagle2250 said:


> For a period of approximately 32 years I carried a variety of firearms and other less lethal weapons in both military and law enforcement roles and since my retirement from both roles I have carried a sidearm on at most a half dozen occassions. I find it almost a luxury to go out without a sidearm tucked in some sort of holster and secreted on my person. It's kinda nice not having the butt of a gun pressing into my back, ribcage, wherever! I must also confess befuddlement over the almost rabid fascination with carryng weapons, that seems so widespread. Our's are mean streets and there are threats aplenty that must be acknowledged, dealt with and yes, occassionally be claimed as justification for arming onesself. However, deadly force is not always a necessary, nor a prudent counter to such threats. Certainly, there will always be the occassional set of circunstances that justify the carriage of and potentially the use of a sidearm, but just as certainly, that need is way, way overstated and in most instances that weapons are discharged, other more prudent options were overlooked along the path that lead to those weapons discharges!


It's not about need. It's never been about need. It's about the Right. When someone removes the Right, the need suddenly becomes apparent. When you don't have free speech, you need free speech. When you don't have due process, you need due process. When you don't have the right to bear arms.....

I don't need to carry a firearm on a daily basis, and haven't since I gave up being an arms dealer. When I was in the business, it was a necessary protective device much like a hardhat or steel-toe boots on a construction site. On the vast majority of days, I wouldn't need it, but if a day came that I did, I would be a #$%#^ fool not to have it on. I wasn't out looking for trouble. I was in a stationary location conducting normal business. My weapon's primary function was as a deterrent. It was a visible warning against would be armed robbers. Predators go after easy prey. A store full of armed men is anything but.

The vast majority of my clientele were enthusiasts, military, Law enforcement, and their families. When purchasing for "need" (generally home defense) we swayed them to shotguns (say what you will, nothing beats the instinctual reaction to the sound of a pump rack), or revolvers (pull trigger go boom, if fail, repeat, try again). Elegance in simplicity from the classic point and click interface. After that we got into the "want" category, which is another bailiwick entirely.

But as for more prudent options... planning, avoidance, teamwork, and even lesser physical tools should be the primary, and you should of course escalate up to deadly force. But.... you should have the ability to end the confrontation immediately when you realize that if you don't it will result in you death, or imminent bodily harm. We don't fault people for buying auto insurance (we actually require it), most of people consider themselves above average drivers. Why would we fault someone for having bought a little bit of personal protective insurance? Police are reactive, and I don't trust any insurance company to actually pay out when I'm dead and gone (I'm not here to ensure they do).


----------



## Regillus

andy b. said:


> ... Afterall, the court of public opinion would have convicted OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony of murder.
> 
> Andy B.


And they would have been right.

From the Orlando Sentinel article:

"On Feb. 26, when Zimmerman first spotted Trayvon, he called police and reported a suspicious person, describing Trayvon as black, acting strangely and perhaps on drugs. ​Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes."​
If Zimmerman had stayed in his SUV; nothing would have happened.​


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

I'm astonished and shocked at some of the stuff I'm reading here about the Zimmerman case.


----------



## VictorRomeo

andy b. said:


> To all of you who have already convicted Zimmerman, the police are now interviewing a witness who says Zimmerman was attacked first. You may want to hold off on that conviction until all of the evidence is presented, lest you appear to act stupidly. B.


That of course is the desired outcome but as it stands this will not happen. Hence the mess, specualtion and - one could argue - the justified hysteria.

An arrest, a charge(s) and then a trial is needed to present the evidence formally and for a judge and/or jury to present a verdict.

That will put an end to all of this trial by media. Because that's all there is.


----------



## Chouan

Looking at the US News media on-line there seems to be a growing split in public opinion about this case, and the split is along race lines. What a sad indictment on a society.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Chouan said:


> Looking at the US News media on-line there seems to be a growing split in public opinion about this case, and the split is along race lines. What a sad indictment on a society.


In fairnes Chouan, this sentiment is not unique to our cousins on the other side of the pond. There's plenty of that going around over here too.....

Save for the 'Stand Your Ground' law which is simply just bat$hit crazy....


----------



## Tilton

Chouan said:


> Looking at the US News media on-line there seems to be a growing split in public opinion about this case, and the split is along race lines. What a sad indictment on a society.


The division of race in America is tremendous. What's most interesting is that it is promulgated by the people who claim to be most "colorblind". Take for example, Obama's comment that if he had a son he would have looked like Trayvon Martin. What good does it do to say something like that? He makes that comment and then Carney immediately says "oh, but we're not going to get involved in this whatsoever." Other comments were made about it being a hate crime, racism, etc. But is there proof of this? No. Can there ever be proof of a hate crime without the confession of a hate crime? Not unless our Orwellian trajectory has fully realized itself and the Thought Police are on duty. But, those looking to "level the playing field" for minorities immediately conclude that if a minority is the victim, it is racism, it is a hate crime. It's that sort of rhetoric that causes the race divide in the first place! I think Newt had it right when he said that the case isn't a tragedy because a black kid was killed by a non-black man; it is a tragedy because an unarmed teen was shot by a misguided, irresponsible adult for no apparent reason and it has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's skin color.


----------



## Tilton

VictorRomeo said:


> In fairnes Chouan, this sentiment is not unique to our cousins on the other side of the pond. There's plenty of that going around over here too.....
> 
> Save for the 'Stand Your Ground' law which is simply just bat$hit crazy....


In this case stand your grand was grossly misused. It is absolutely not a tool to instigate a confrontation; it just gives you the right to protect yourself. However, I guess being from the American South, it is hard to understand how one can say that I don't have the right to protect myself with equal force (as in, deadly force of any form constitutes defense with deadly force) when someone sticks a gun in my car window at a stop light and says "move over, we're going for a ride." Guns will always be available to criminals, and they generally will give no thought to whether or not they have the right use it against you. The least you can do is have the legal right to be able to defend yourself.

There have been a number of cases in the US where someone was held up, or their home was invaded and the victim used deadly force on the intruder/criminal and went to jail for murder when indeed they likely would have been murdered themselves, because, in some states, one is required to go to extraordinary lengths to "retreat from threat." That's why the Stand Your Ground laws and Castle Doctrine exists.


----------



## JohnRov

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I didn't realise you were an expert on the firearms training of the thousands of police forces globally. What police forces have you done firearms training with to come to such a conclusion?
> 
> I can only speak for the firearms training of the police forces I have worked with and those I have been on a firing range with, where firearms training was extremely rigorous and professional.


I never claimed to be an expert, I'd appreciate if you didn't attribute a position to me I never stated. My rationale for my opinion is illustrated in my posts. I said unless shown otherwise my initial position was to assume like competency with firearms in the rest of the world with US civilian police forces. Your post demonstrates that there are at least some forces in your experience that have more rigorous training. I will adjust my thinking based on new evidence.

But in the US, it is certainly a generalizable statement that for a variety of reasons, police are not highly competent with their firearms.


----------



## Regillus

JohnRov said:


> ...in the US, it is certainly a generalizable statement that for a variety of reasons, police are not highly competent with their firearms.


I mostly agree but I would say that it varies. I have a brother who was a deputy sheriff in Fla. for a few years. He only had to qualify with his personal .357 Magnum once. During qualifying, a problem was discovered. His hands are ever so slightly shaky. He scored low but did pass. So some cops can barely shoot straight because of unsteady hands. Some cops are pretty good about regular monthly practice at the local firing range; some aren't.

*UPDATE: *ABC News with the latest scoop: The lead homicide investigator in the shooting of Trayvon Martin originally recommended that police charge George Zimmerman with manslaughter the night of the shooting.



The network, citing "multiple sources," reports that Investigator Chris Serino was instructed, however, not to press charges against Zimmerman because the Florida state attorney's office had determined that there wasn't enough evidence to lead to a conviction.


ABC News also reports that Zimmerman was brought to the police station for questioning "for a few hours" on the night of the shooting, despite his request for medical attention first, and that Serino filed an affidavit on the night that Martin was killed that stated he was unconvinced by Zimmerman's version of events.
*****************************
I keep hearing about this witness who says he saw Martin attack Zimmerman. However, we don't know who he is so we can't check out the credibility of his story.


----------



## VictorRomeo

JohnRov said:


> But in the US, it is certainly a generalizable statement that for a variety of reasons, police are not highly competent with their firearms.


From what I see and read, they don't seem to be particularly competent with their policing either.....


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

JohnRov said:


> I'd appreciate if you didn't attribute a position to me I never stated.


Stop making wild generalisations then, sounding like an informed perosn, when all that it is is your guesswork and opinion.



JohnRov said:


> I will adjust my thinking based on new evidence.


But you've provided no evidence to support_ YOUR _generalisations. Show me this old evidence then?



JohnRov said:


> But in the US, it is certainly a generalizable statement that for a variety of reasons, police are not highly competent with their firearms.


Provide evidence of that! Or stop making generalisations

This is your text that I quoted earlier


JohnRov said:


> ...but unless shown otherwise i am not inclined to believe even other civilian police forces are very well trained with firearms.


The burden of proof is on YOU as the person making the generalisaton. NOT for police forces around the world to disprove an unfounded generalisation.

BUT you haven't provided any evidence for that generalisation at all. So my question to you still stands, 
on what evidence and experience of other civilian police forces around the world do you base that generalisation?

NONE presumably. Just your opinion.

Be clear in my intention here though, it is not to criticise the holes in your rhetoric nor is it to defend the use of firearms. It is simply to defend the good name and excellent firearms training of MOST, yes most, police forces.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Chouan said:


> Looking at the US News media on-line there seems to be a growing split in public opinion about this case, and the split is along race lines. What a sad indictment on a society.


I think the split you are seeing arises from the likelihood of law enforcement, prosecutors, and the public at large to take the presumption of innocence more seriously/literally when the potential defendant is affluent. Poor people (or those perceived to be poor) don't get anything like the benefit of the doubt that our legal system technically mandates, but affluent people (or those perceived to be wealthy) often do.

As for the Martin/Zimmerman case in particular, I would say this: One of the things I have learned from my years of practicing law (the kind of law where one takes disputes to court, mind you, not just transactional advice - barrister stuff, not solely solicitor stuff for you UK types) is that it is very, very difficult to figure out precisely what happened in a contentious situation. Many is the time when, after literally _years_ of litigation (including testimony, examination of documents, tapes, film, etc.), there is still real uncertainty as to what happened. When you add in what we have learned about the human mind's perception and recording of events, a lot of that uncertainty would remain even if we could directly access the memories of those involved without any fear of deception.

So I say that anyone boldly insisting that Zimmerman did or did not have a choice about whether to shoot is just blustering. We don't know. Let the process work. And remember that innocent-until-proven-guilty applies in the legal system, if not in the public debate.


----------



## Mike Petrik

CuffDaddy said:


> I think the split you are seeing arises from the likelihood of law enforcement, prosecutors, and the public at large to take the presumption of innocence more seriously/literally when the potential defendant is affluent. Poor people (or those perceived to be poor) don't get anything like the benefit of the doubt that our legal system technically mandates, but affluent people (or those perceived to be wealthy) often do.
> 
> As for the Martin/Zimmerman case in particular, I would say this: One of the things I have learned from my years of practicing law (the kind of law where one takes disputes to court, mind you, not just transactional advice - barrister stuff, not solely solicitor stuff for you UK types) is that it is very, very difficult to figure out precisely what happened in a contentious situation. Many is the time when, after literally _years_ of litigation (including testimony, examination of documents, tapes, film, etc.), there is still real uncertainty as to what happened. When you add in what we have learned about the human mind's perception and recording of events, a lot of that uncertainty would remain even if we could directly access the memories of those involved without any fear of deception.
> 
> So I say that anyone boldly insisting that Zimmerman did or did not have a choice about whether to shoot is just blustering. We don't know. Let the process work. And remember that innocent-until-proven-guilty applies in the legal system, if not in the public debate.


Well said, Cuff. One would think that folks would have learned a thing or two from the Duke lacrosse episode, but it seems not. I'm perfectly prepared to believe that Zimmerman is a racist thug who was looking for a reason to shoot a black person and contrived one. I'm also perfectly prepared to believe that Zimmerman is a perfectly decent bloke who was unfairly attacked and defended himself. Or anything in between. I wasn't there. Let the legal process do its work. Although imperfect, it is lightyears superior to trial by blowhard forum know-nothings.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> Which facts are these?
> Was the 17 year old unarmed?
> Was the perpetrator armed with a concealed weapon?
> Did Zimmeman shoot the lad?
> Did he claim self-defence?
> Could he have shot him if he didn't legally have a gun?
> Did the law in Florida allow him to shoot a 17 year old with impunity?
> Is it reasonable to allow somebody to shoot and kill a youth because he didn't like the look of him?
> Does this episode make you proud of your country?


I'm not proud of ignorant race-hustlers, domestic or foreign.


----------



## JohnRov

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Stop making wild generalisations then, sounding like an informed perosn, when all that it is is your guesswork and opinion.
> 
> But you've provided no evidence to support_ YOUR _generalisations. Show me this old evidence then?
> 
> Provide evidence of that! Or stop making generalisations
> 
> This is your text that I quoted earlier
> 
> The burden of proof is on YOU as the person making the generalisaton. NOT for police forces around the world to disprove an unfounded generalisation.
> 
> BUT you haven't provided any evidence for that generalisation at all. So my question to you still stands,
> on what evidence and experience of other civilian police forces around the world do you base that generalisation?
> 
> NONE presumably. Just your opinion.
> 
> Be clear in my intention here though, it is not to criticise the holes in your rhetoric nor is it to defend the use of firearms. It is simply to defend the good name and excellent firearms training of MOST, yes most, police forces.


As the data is out there and readily available, I will summarize. The hit rate for shots fired for (US) police forces is around 33%. This data is usually sourced from larger forces like NYPD or LAPD, but no evidence suggests it does not apply to other forces as well. This includes all discharges, including putting down dogs, etc. When applied to only what we think of as gunfights, the number drops to the teens. I have read anywhere from 13% - 17%. This is not that impressive.

Most officers will never fire their firearms in the course of duty. This combination of infrequency and high stress creates an environment that stacks the deck against a successful outcome. I have not read or heard of many departments that would be able to provide the frequency of training necessary to prepare an officer for an encounter like this, regardless of the quality of the curriculum, and this is reflected in the statistics.


----------



## Wildblue

JohnRov said:


> As the data is out there and readily available, I will summarize. The hit rate for shots fired for (US) police forces is around 33%. This data is usually sourced from larger forces like NYPD or LAPD, but no evidence suggests it does not apply to other forces as well. This includes all discharges, including putting down dogs, etc. When applied to only what we think of as gunfights, the number drops to the teens. I have read anywhere from 13% - 17%. This is not that impressive.
> 
> Most officers will never fire their firearms in the course of duty. This combination of infrequency and high stress creates an environment that stacks the deck against a successful outcome. I have not read or heard of many departments that would be able to provide the frequency of training necessary to prepare an officer for an encounter like this, regardless of the quality of the curriculum, and this is reflected in the statistics.


Uh... very well, then. Please place this information into context. How does this compare to any other force that discharges weapons? Do other services that find themselves under fire have a higher hit rate? Have you yourself ever been shot at, been in a firefight, or had to defend yourself using a firearm? What was your accuracy?

I presume you're also going under the assumption that every single round that is fired is done so with the intention of striking a designated target.


----------



## Tilton

Wildblue said:


> Uh... very well, then. Please place this information into context. How does this compare to any other force that discharges weapons? Do other services that find themselves under fire have a higher hit rate? Have you yourself ever been shot at, been in a firefight, or had to defend yourself using a firearm? What was your accuracy?
> 
> I presume you're also going under the assumption that every single round that is fired is done so with the intention of striking a designated target.


Very good points. A former college roommate is a PO now and he shoots at least 1000 rounds/month at the range. He is infinitely better than I am with a handgun. He also claims that he is almost dead average in marksmanship within his department. I would argue that the hit rate of the Marines is far lower than the hit rate of PO's... but then again, for the most part the two rarely find themselves in similar circumstances when discharging a weapon ILD.


----------



## Regillus

I just looked at a video of Zimmerman on Orlandosentinel.com. He said Martin attacked him and struck him and gave him a bloody nose. In the video; I don't see any blood. I watched the entire thing. What was helpful was that Zimmerman turned almost completely around, so that you could see the back of his head. I don't see any blood or cuts or bad scratches on the back of his head. So did Martin knock Zimmerman down causing lacerations to the back of his head? I don't see it.

From the Sentinel:

"With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.That is the account Zimmerman gave police,...."
****************************************************
Zimmerman doesn't look "bloody and battered" in the video.
I think this video hurts Zimmermans case more than it helps.
**************************************************
Sentinel: "Police have been reluctant to provide details about their evidence."
*************************************************
Because if they did the "self-defense" story would fall apart?
************************************************
Sentinel: "One witness, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him - and was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help."
*************************************************
Who? Let's check out the credibility of this person and the details of his story.​


----------



## CuffDaddy

Wildblue said:


> I presume you're also going under the assumption that every single round that is fired is done so with the intention of striking a designated target.


Not a lot of suppressing fire in law enforcement, nor much area fire. LEO's generally have to account for every single round discharged in the line of duty, since any stray bullet could strike an innocent bystander, which would kind of defeat the entire purpose of law enforcement.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Regillus said:


> I just looked at a video of Zimmerman on Orlandosentinel.com. He said Martin attacked him and struck him and gave him a bloody nose. In the video; I don't see any blood.


Article~


> Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and back of his head, according to a police report, but the video, provided ABC News by the city of Sanford, shows no obvious sign of injury.
> 
> He was tended at the scene by paramedics but told them he did not need to go to a hospital, police reported.
> 
> The video shows a somber Zimmerman, hands cuffed behind his back, stepping from a patrol car, surrounded by several officers, walking through a door, then returning.


So, Zimmerman was cuffed, detained and questioned the night of the incident. Witnesses were questioned as well. Interesting.

If he was cleaned up before his injuries were documented, that is disturbing. But a surveillance tape is not there to document injuries.

It still seems as though SOME PEOPLE, race baiters, as well as the usual suspects, won't be happy unless Zimmerman is lyched or race riots break out.

Or Walgreens looted.

Whatever.


----------



## JohnRov

Wildblue said:


> Uh... very well, then. Please place this information into context. How does this compare to any other force that discharges weapons? Do other services that find themselves under fire have a higher hit rate? Have you yourself ever been shot at, been in a firefight, or had to defend yourself using a firearm? What was your accuracy?
> 
> I presume you're also going under the assumption that every single round that is fired is done so with the intention of striking a designated target.


As has been pointed out, the circumstances of law enforcement and military firefights are very different, I have nothing to add to that.

Titon, that is admirable to fire 1000 rounds per month, and very unusual for several reasons. First, most department budgets don't provide that many rounds to officers. Second, even in departments like my brother-in-law works for who do provide essentially as many rounds as an officer wants, the interest in shooting is very low. My BIL is full-time SWAT, and all the firearms trainers for the regular department come from his team. His feed is 1) running the range during yearly qualifications is the most dangerous part of his job (probably a little exaggeration to drive home his point) 2) most officers just don't shoot.

I have not been in a gunfight so I don't know what my accuracy would be. I was responding to an often repeated statement indicating that only police should carry firearms, implying they were more competent in their use. I question the veracity of that assumption. Actually pulling the trigger isn't the only reason to carry a firearm. Without looking it up, I believe Gary Kleck states that of all defensive gun use, under 10% actually results in shots fired. So the effectiveness in civilians' (or anybody's) hands isn't 100% correlated to to accuracy, but when it is, I don't know that police have the upper hand there.

Lastly, marksmanship on the range is great, you can learn the fundamentals, but it is only the beginning. Training under stress is a completely different thing, and something that needs to be done frequently and constantly in order to perform under those conditions.


----------



## Tilton

WouldaShoulda said:


> Article~
> 
> So, Zimmerman was cuffed, detained and questioned the night of the incident. Witnesses were questioned as well. Interesting.
> 
> If he was cleaned up before his injuries were documented, that is disturbing. *But a surveillance tape is not there to document injuries.
> 
> It still seems as though SOME PEOPLE, race baiters, as well as the usual suspects, won't be happy unless Zimmerman is lyched or race riots break out.
> 
> Or Walgreens looted.*
> 
> Whatever.


Agreed.

There are also a lot of unanswered questions that should come out in court. What was Martin doing in a gated community in which he did not live and did not travel through to go from the store to his home? What prompted Zimmerman to ever leave his car, and to get close enough to be attacked? I think that drawing any conclusions right now is just feeding one's own bias. Also, just as a point of fact, not insinuating this is the case whatsoever, but I know that in many states, deadly force can be used against the threat of deadly force. Obviously, if Martin had told Zimmerman he was going to kill/shoot/stab him - regardless of whether or not he actually had a weapon - he would have said so. But, in most SYG states, the would-be victim is usually in the clear to use similar deadly force to protect his life in that circumstance... that is, until MSM gets a hold of it.


----------



## Tilton

JohnRov said:


> As has been pointed out, the circumstances of law enforcement and military firefights are very different, I have nothing to add to that.
> 
> Titon, that is admirable to fire 1000 rounds per month, and very unusual for several reasons. First, most department budgets don't provide that many rounds to officers. Second, even in departments like my brother-in-law works for who do provide essentially as many rounds as an officer wants, the interest in shooting is very low. My BIL is full-time SWAT, and all the firearms trainers for the regular department come from his team. His feed is 1) running the range during yearly qualifications is the most dangerous part of his job (probably a little exaggeration to drive home his point) 2) most officers just don't shoot.
> 
> I have not been in a gunfight so I don't know what my accuracy would be. I was responding to an often repeated statement indicating that only police should carry firearms, implying they were more competent in their use. I question the veracity of that assumption. Actually pulling the trigger isn't the only reason to carry a firearm. Without looking it up, I believe Gary Kleck states that of all defensive gun use, under 10% actually results in shots fired. So the effectiveness in civilians' (or anybody's) hands isn't 100% correlated to to accuracy, but when it is, I don't know that police have the upper hand there.
> 
> Lastly, marksmanship on the range is great, you can learn the fundamentals, but it is only the beginning. Training under stress is a completely different thing, and something that needs to be done frequently and constantly in order to perform under those conditions.


Sure, I wasn't disputing any of this. I don't personally know any other LEO's so I only have the one to cite. I never made any claim contrary to what you're saying, just that I know one guy who shoots often, claims it's not unusual in his dept. and is a good shot with his issued gun.

I might also add that he told me they have to qualify at least two per year with any personal side arm they may carry. He initially wanted to carry a snubnose .357 on his ankle but found that he couldn't qualify (6 shots in 6 seconds on a 24" target at 25 yards, if I remember correctly), so he bought a different side arm he could qualify with.


----------



## Wildblue

JohnRov said:


> Lastly, marksmanship on the range is great, you can learn the fundamentals, but it is only the beginning. Training under stress is a completely different thing, and something that needs to be done frequently and constantly in order to perform under those conditions.


... says the man with zero experience in being shot at.


----------



## Apatheticviews

33% isn't a low percent. When you are dealing with 15 rounds in a mag (9mm), or 30 (5.56), that's 5-10 on target. More than enough to kill a man. At the distance the average shots are fired (7 steps last I heard, about 14-21 feet), with all the chemicals that are pumping through a person's body, getting *any shots* on target is difficult. That's why police forces converted from revolvers to semi-autos. More capacity. They identified a common issue, and adjusted accordingly. Even in the USMC, our STANDARD combat load is 7 mags (30 each), and that's at the fire team level (4 men). That's 800rd's of ammo, with the assumption that you might encounter 4-10 other guys.

On the range, I was a high expert with the rifle, but in a combat situation, my 85+% in the black hit rate would have dropped like a stone to something closer to 20% if I was lucky. That's based on my limited use of sims rounds where you can actually count your kills vs shots fired after the fact.


----------



## JohnRov

Wildblue said:


> ... says the man with zero experience in being shot at.


Irrelevant and supported by others, including those I talk to on a regular basis who have been shot at and have been through both "marksmanship" training and simulated fight training.

It is not unique to this topic that people respond and are able to act much differently under stress than in a calm, controlled environment.

Your snide remark added nothing, please try and do better than that.


----------



## Regillus

I find it troubling that the police didn't takes photos of Zimmermans bloody nose and lacerated head for purposes of evidentiary documentation. Sloppy work on their part. It raises the question of did any such injuries actually occur.


----------



## Wildblue

Here's the point. You posted a statistic of US police forces having a particular percentage of total shots fired, that struck particular targets, presumably implying that this meant something about the weapons skills of US police officers. You still haven't answered my question--what is your intention posting that? Where is the comparison that brings that single statistic into context? Do Swedish police forces have an accuracy rate that is double the US, under the exact same tactical situations, to compare apples as close to apples as possible? Do we have twice the accuracy as the Mexican federales? Are you assuming that every shot fired is specifically intended to strike a chosen target, vs trying to get a shooter to put his head down, or fire a warning shot for those forces authorized to do so? With your particular level of experience in firefights, what level of accuraccy are you trying to persuade the readers here that US police forces SHOULD have? Do you, as an outside observer, believe that nothing short of 100% accuracy is acceptable? In your position of judgment, would you accept 90%? 80%?

I strongly discourage ANYONE from judging police, tactical, firefighters, military, and such based on sterile statistic numbers and assigning a value that you arbitrarily think should be met, then make a statement like, "those guys need to practice more in stressful environments to simulate real tactical emergencies" or whatever. That goes double for those that have never been in that tactical situation themselves. Until you've ever been through a firefight, you'll never truly know how a man is thinking to use his body, weapon, and environment to respond. Training is a start, but is never as fully a teacher as birth into any type of "combat". I'm not a firefighter, so I'm not going to say, "yeah, firefighters are inept unless they put out 90% of single-story fires within 15 minutes." That would be assinine. Similarly, I smile at those that tell me how my plane really needs to be flown in any given situation, or something like, "the next time you're shot at, I, in my infinite position of judgment, expect 80% of shots to strike center mass or head of your attacker." (totally ignoring what the particular tactical or political situation might be)

There are those who are warriors, and willingly go into those horrible situations where bad things happen. Then there are those who will never do anything other than sit on the sidelines, nitpick and criticize those who do, failing to institute a proper method of accountability that understands what those horrible situations are actually like for those involved.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Wildblue said:


> I presume you're also going under the assumption that every single round that is fired is done so with the intention of striking a designated target.


That is the case in the UK. Suppressing fire just doesn't happen, as it serves no justifiable purpose in a civilian setting. Nor for that matter does wild shooting to try to hit a target. ASU officers and firearms unit marksmen, fire single rounds to hit an identified target, be it a hazardous gas cylinder, a person or a wild dog.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

JohnRov said:


> As the data is out there and readily available, I will summarize. The hit rate for shots fired for (US) police forces is around 33%. This data is usually sourced from larger forces like NYPD or LAPD, but no evidence suggests it does not apply to other forces as well. This includes all discharges, including putting down dogs, etc. When applied to only what we think of as gunfights, the number drops to the teens. I have read anywhere from 13% - 17%. This is not that impressive.
> 
> Most officers will never fire their firearms in the course of duty. This combination of infrequency and high stress creates an environment that stacks the deck against a successful outcome. I have not read or heard of many departments that would be able to provide the frequency of training necessary to prepare an officer for an encounter like this, regardless of the quality of the curriculum, and this is reflected in the statistics.


Thanks, very interesting.


----------



## Chouan

Tilton said:


> Agreed.
> 
> There are also a lot of unanswered questions that should come out in court. What was Martin doing in a gated community in which he did not live and did not travel through to go from the store to his home? What prompted Zimmerman to ever leave his car, and to get close enough to be attacked? I think that drawing any conclusions right now is just feeding one's own bias. Also, just as a point of fact, not insinuating this is the case whatsoever, but I know that in many states, deadly force can be used against the threat of deadly force. Obviously, if Martin had told Zimmerman he was going to kill/shoot/stab him - regardless of whether or not he actually had a weapon - he would have said so. But, in most SYG states, the would-be victim is usually in the clear to use similar deadly force to protect his life in that circumstance... that is, until MSM gets a hold of it.


According the the British news media, the youth's father lived in that same "gated community", so he was fully justified in being there. On the other hand, I'm not aware that, even in the US, it is a justification of following and shooting somebody if they are seen walking through a gated community.


----------



## Chouan

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'm not proud of ignorant race-hustlers, domestic or foreign.


Could you explain what a "race-hustler" is please?


----------



## JohnRov

Wildblue said:


> Here's the point. You posted a statistic of US police forces having a particular percentage of total shots fired, that struck particular targets, presumably implying that this meant something about the weapons skills of US police officers. You still haven't answered my question--what is your intention posting that? Where is the comparison that brings that single statistic into context? Do Swedish police forces have an accuracy rate that is double the US, under the exact same tactical situations, to compare apples as close to apples as possible? Do we have twice the accuracy as the Mexican federales? Are you assuming that every shot fired is specifically intended to strike a chosen target, vs trying to get a shooter to put his head down, or fire a warning shot for those forces authorized to do so? With your particular level of experience in firefights, what level of accuraccy are you trying to persuade the readers here that US police forces SHOULD have? Do you, as an outside observer, believe that nothing short of 100% accuracy is acceptable? In your position of judgment, would you accept 90%? 80%?
> 
> I strongly discourage ANYONE from judging police, tactical, firefighters, military, and such based on sterile statistic numbers and assigning a value that you arbitrarily think should be met, then make a statement like, "those guys need to practice more in stressful environments to simulate real tactical emergencies" or whatever. That goes double for those that have never been in that tactical situation themselves. Until you've ever been through a firefight, you'll never truly know how a man is thinking to use his body, weapon, and environment to respond. Training is a start, but is never as fully a teacher as birth into any type of "combat". I'm not a firefighter, so I'm not going to say, "yeah, firefighters are inept unless they put out 90% of single-story fires within 15 minutes." That would be assinine. Similarly, I smile at those that tell me how my plane really needs to be flown in any given situation, or something like, "the next time you're shot at, I, in my infinite position of judgment, expect 80% of shots to strike center mass or head of your attacker." (totally ignoring what the particular tactical or political situation might be)
> 
> There are those who are warriors, and willingly go into those horrible situations where bad things happen. Then there are those who will never do anything other than sit on the sidelines, nitpick and criticize those who do, failing to institute a proper method of accountability that understands what those horrible situations are actually like for those involved.


I will, for your benefit, state my reason for bringing this up I believe for the third (and final) time. My intent was not to compare police accuracy to an arbitrary standard, it was:

To respond to the notion that only police should carry guns implying police have some innate superiority in their use over civilians. I was providing data that this may not be so.

As for warriors and walking a mile in their shoes, I appreciate that as much as anyone. As I have stated, my BIL is full-time SWAT on a large force. What he does on a daily basis is amazing. It is largely from his opinion of what police marksmanship should be based on his team's performance, their training, and his observation of the regular force that I surmise that a mid-teen hit ratio is low.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

JohnRov said:


> Irrelevant and supported by others, including those I talk to on a regular basis who have been shot at and have been through both "marksmanship" training and simulated fight training.
> 
> It is not unique to this topic that people respond and are able to act much differently under stress than in a calm, controlled environment.
> 
> Your snide remark added nothing, please try and do better than that.


Well said sir.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Regillus said:


> I find it troubling that the police didn't takes photos of Zimmermans bloody nose and lacerated head for purposes of evidentiary documentation. Sloppy work on their part. It raises the question of did any such injuries actually occur.


If that turns out to be the case, it is an ommission worth getting firing over.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> Could you explain what a "race-hustler" is please?


This guy will do a better job than I can; (EXCERPTS)

The man who shot the black teenager in Florida may be as guilty as sin, for all I know - or he may be innocent, for all I know. We pay taxes so that there can be judges and jurors who sort out the facts. We do not need Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or the President of the United States spouting off before the trial has even begun.

Have we forgotten the media's rush to judgment in the Duke University "rape" case that blew up completely when the facts came out?

If the facts show that a teenager who was no threat to anyone was shot and killed, it will be time to call for the death penalty. But if the facts show that the shooter was innocent, then it will be time to call for people in the media and in politics to keep their big mouths shut until they know what they are talking about.

Playing with racial polarization is playing with fire.

Let the specific facts come out in the Florida case. That is why we have courts.

Have we forgotten the Jim Crow era, with courts making decisions based on the race of the defendants, rather than the facts of the case? That is part of the past that we need to leave in the past, not resurrect it under new racial management.

Who is really showing concern for the well-being of minority youngsters, Geraldo Rivera who is trying to save some lives, or Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others who are hyping this tragic episode for their own benefit?

*Race hustlers* who hype paranoia and belligerence are doing no favor to minority youngsters. There is no way to know how many of these youngsters' confrontations with the police or others in authority have been needlessly aggravated by the steady drumbeat of racial hype they have been bombarded with by race hustlers.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com.


----------



## Tilton

Chouan said:


> According the the British news media, the youth's father lived in that same "gated community", so he was fully justified in being there. On the other hand, I'm not aware that, even in the US, it is a justification of following and shooting somebody if they are seen walking through a gated community.


That was not initially reported. I just read it yesterday. Prior reports stated he did not live in the community.



Chouan said:


> Could you explain what a "race-hustler" is please?


Someone who drums up issues of race where they are not necessarily actually present. Think people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, politicians, etc. Someone who uses the divisive tactic of turning every conceivable event into a hate crime. While, yes, a non-black killed a black, there is no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was some sort of hate mongering racist and killed Martin because he was black. Race-hustlers generally have a severely confused idea that correlation = causation in every single case. Is it possible it was a hate crime? Of course. Is it a verified fact? Absolutely not. However, listening to the racist rhetoric of the NAACP/Sharpton/Jackson, one would be led to the assumption that Zimmerman's home is full *********** paraphernalia and he was out looking to shoot any black person he saw in his neighborhood. Generally such people have something to gain from spouting their own hateful, slanderous speech about how such-and-such is so racist and how if so-and-so had been white, things would be different.

The fact is America isn't as racist as these people would like to think. Indeed, they'd be out of business if the world knew how unracist America is, so it is in their best interest for non-racial issues to be made into racial issues. We have a black president. We don't have anywhere close to enough black Americans to elect any particular candidate on their own in a nation-wide plurality election. Tons of white people voted for Obama - an expression of their utmost trust in his capabilities. To race-hustler's chagrin, America really isn't out to get black people.

FWIW, I have quite a few black friends, all of whom attended top-25 undergrad programs and several of whom hold Ivy League undergrad or law degrees. Not a single one of them thinks America has a terrible race issue. How many of the protesters of this case do you think hold similar credentials? Also, most of them are against affirmative action because they see it as institutionalized racism and several do not think they should qualify for the benefits because they are not related to any slaves (statistically, 76% of black Americans using affirmative action have no direct relation to anyone who was ever a slave in America, most are 2-3 generations removed from African immigrants).


----------



## VictorRomeo

Tilton said:


> That was not initially reported. I just read it yesterday. Prior reports stated he did not live in the community.


Not so. Over here anyway - from the outset - it was reported that his father lived in this gated community and he was staying with him.


----------



## Chouan

Who are the foreign (to Americans) race-hustlers then? The only non-American views I've seen are concerning the apparent ease with which an armed person can shoot an unarmed person, and seemingly not have committed a crime. The only race orientated views seem to be those coming from the US. Unless of course it is the action of a perceived "race-hustler" to report that the victim was black?


----------



## Tilton

Chouan said:


> Who are the foreign (to Americans) race-hustlers then? The only non-American views I've seen are concerning the apparent ease with which an armed person can shoot an unarmed person, and seemingly not have committed a crime. The only race orientated views seem to be those coming from the US. Unless of course it is the action of a perceived "race-hustler" to report that the victim was black?


If the initial comment was about foreign race hustlers, I missed it. You're correct, this is an American phenomenon. However, you may note in American media that when any non-white person is killed, their race is clearly reported whereas if the victim is white you will NEVER hear "a white teen was gunned down...". I think there is some inherent bias when the media stresses that the victim was any sort of race. To me, American is American and a teen is a teen. I don't think it is being callous or racist to say that a crime is a crime and a person is a person and only in very particular circumstances should skin color ever come into play (neo-nazi, black panthers, other radial race-related groups).


----------



## Regillus

From Slate Magazine:

"Meanwhile on Friday, the funeral director who prepared Martin's body for burial said he saw no signs that the 17-year-old had been in a physical confrontation with Zimmerman as the neighborhood watch volunteer has claimed.



'We could see no physical signs like there had been a scuffle [or] there had been a fight,' Richard Kurtz told . 'The hands-I didn't see any knuckles, bruises or what have you. And that is something we would have covered up if it would have been there.'"

I unfortunately have some personal experience with how embalmers prepare a body. Many years ago one of my cousins died in a car crash. It appears that he fell asleep at the wheel and drifted off the road and crashed. His face was badly damaged in the crash. The embalmers asked my aunt for a picture of him. They made a face that looked like him out of make-up. You could tell that the face was fake just by looking at it - it was plastic-looking - almost like a store mannequins face (it was an open-casket funeral). So if Martin had been in a fight with Zimmerman; where were the bruises from that encounter? If Martin "decked" Zimmerman as has been reported; then where are the bruises on his hand or knuckles to show that? As stated above; the embalmers would have had to put make-up on to cover up any bruises or scratches from the fight that supposedly took place to make the body presentable for the funeral.

Things just aren't adding up.


----------



## CuffDaddy

For anyone who is interested in trying to reach a conclusion on what actually happened*, here's a handy summary from a source that I find to be fairly reliable and accurate in their reporting (they are open about their left/progressive viewpoint, but try to make sure their fact reportage is straight). https://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsm...on_martin_george_zimmerman_basics.php?ref=fpa

* I am not. As explained above, I find it so challenging to do that when I'm being paid hundreds of dollars an hour and when I can devote weeks and months to the effort that I don't think it's possible to do even an acceptable job of it on an amateur, media-sourced basis. I used to do it, then got so tired of being wrong that I just quit. Now I very consciously don't form opinions as to "what really happened" until after a lot of process has occurred.


----------



## dba

JohnRov said:


> The police here are among the most incompetent population with guns we have (I'm sure elsewhere as well).


Not all of us.


----------



## Regillus

Update: Better video shows gashes on the back of Zimmerman's head.

From the Orlando Sentinel:

"Reporter Matt Gutman said the clearer video shows 'what appear to be a pair of gashes or welts on George Zimmerman's head.'

Gutman said the video had been 'clarified' by Forensic Protection Inc. Former FBI Special Agent Brad Garrett told ABC that the clearer video shows 'marks on the back of Mr. Zimmerman's head.'"

So now the picture starts to look somewhat better for Zimmerman. It still doesn't explain why he chose to leave his SUV and chase after Martin.
​


----------



## JohnRov

dba said:


> Not all of us.


Absolutely, that may have been worded a bit strongly as I reread it but my core point was police are not as a population more competent with firearms than the general public based on available data and people I have talked to who are very close and knowledgeable.


----------



## Tilton

JohnRov said:


> Absolutely, that may have been worded a bit strongly as I reread it but my core point was police are not as a population more competent with firearms than the general public based on available data and people I have talked to who are very close and knowledgeable.


Without rereading all of the posts, I do not recall you ever posting any statics about the general public's firearm competency, so you really lack the ability to make that argument with any real plausibility. Also, there is a very, very significant difference in "general population" and the citizen gun enthusiasts sectors. I can assure you that if you chose somebody, at random, off the street, they would not be as competent as a police officer in at least 99 out of 100 cases. Indeed, it would be a free money bet. Less than half of Americans have a gun in the household and less than one-third of all guns in America are hand guns. It can be inferred, then, that a significant majority of American households do not even own a handgun. If you do not own a hand gun, you are extremely unlikely to be as competent as an LEO, unless, of course, you are a former LEO, which brings us back to the "general population vs. LEO" argument.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Tilton said:


> Without rereading all of the posts, I do not recall you ever posting any statics about the general public's firearm competency, so you really lack the ability to make that argument with any real plausibility. Also, there is a very, very significant difference in "general population" and the citizen gun enthusiasts sectors. I can assure you that if you chose somebody, at random, off the street, they would not be as competent as a police officer in at least 99 out of 100 cases. Indeed, it would be a free money bet. Less than half of Americans have a gun in the household and less than one-third of all guns in America are hand guns. It can be inferred, then, that a significant majority of American households do not even own a handgun. If you do not own a hand gun, you are extremely unlikely to be as competent as an LEO, unless, of course, you are a former LEO, which brings us back to the "general population vs. LEO" argument.


Agree. I have no "data" to back this up, but I think comparing LOE with general population is a free money bet. Comparing LOE with gun owners or gun enthusiasts very different story.


----------



## Tilton

Mike Petrik said:


> Agree. I have no "data" to back this up, but I think comparing LOE with general population is a free money bet. Comparing LOE with gun owners or gun enthusiasts very different story.


Gun enthusiasts would be a fair match, but the average gun owner, no chance. With and enthusiast, you're talking about someone who shoots because they love shooting whereas an LEO shoots, primarily, because his life can be at risk everyday he goes into work. It's like comparing a guy who restores and builds classic Corvettes in his garage at home with a guy who works in the service garage at the Chevy dealership or a college professor who writes and published poems on his own time for no other reason than his love of literature with a staff writer at CQ/RollCall. One is in it for the intrinsic value and satisfaction whereas to the other, it is a tool with which he feeds his family. In most cases, the professor will be a better writer, and the garage tinkerer will build a better car but that doesn't mean the factory worker or the staff writer isn't competent.

I worked in a gun shop through college (I graduated a year ago). I can assure you that the vast majority of people buying handguns shoot 20-50 rounds/year at best to make sure they can hit a target at 10 yards and put the gun away, waiting for someone to break into their home.


----------



## MacTweed

Mike Petrik said:


> Agree. I have no "data" to back this up, but I think comparing LOE with general population is a free money bet. Comparing LOE with gun owners or gun enthusiasts very different story.


Not sure about comparing a LEO with a firearm enthusiast, but I do offer portions of an academic study for discussion... I'll allow the author of the article to speak for himself. Emphasis added by me for clarity.


Study of 124 police/correctional departments and 224 instructors in Washington state to explore firearms training frameworks.


"Qualification processes supposedly bestow competence, but the liberal target distances, time limits, and target scoring zones so often encountered raise doubts about the practical utility of contemporary qualification threshold percentage scores. Even high scores on a course unrelated to job-related needs might offer little insight into performance potential. . .*When officers involved in training or qualification activities do not produce very high hit percentages, the circumstances so routinely encountered in gunfights leave little hope that they will be able to ensure their or others' safety*." (p. 215)


In the conclusion of the article: "When incapacitating dangerous person through firearms use is imperative, *armed public safety personnel demonstrate relatively low levels of marksmanship in attempting to protect themselves or others or in seizing dangerous persons fleeing their custody*. Police do not strike their intended targets with a regularity befitting their preparatory and in-service training or their certified status flowing from periodic requalification[sic]." (p. 215)


Admitted limitation of research: "Little research has been done in the area of firearm training despot the many policies, programs, and practices available for examination." (p. 216).



Reference

​Morrison, G.B. (2003). Police and correctional department firearm training frameworks in Washington state. In _Police Quarterly, 6_, 192-221. doi:10.1177/1098611103253453


----------



## Tilton

Interesting read; I'd be interested in seeing what the actual numbers are. 

I don't know what WA's qualifying requirements are, but in our local department, to qualify you must his a center-mass grouping with a total 6" spread, firing 5 rounds in 6 seconds from 25 yards (I asked my old roommate). That's a decently tough qualification to meet, if you ask me. However, the "real world" strikes again, in that no matter how you train, it is impossible to replicate a real-world shoot-out scenario. All the simulators and training facilities and live-fire testing in the world won't bring the same anxiety, fear, and adrenaline of a real situation. 

Just another thought, but do police really shoot to maim/kill 100% of the time? If not, that would drastically skew data. If they were, say shooting to disable a moving vehicle, and fire 8 rounds, that's 8 rounds that were "off-target" if "on-target" is defined by striking a perpetrator. 

I remember in my CCW class that over 90% of protection shooting, ie. shooting an attacker or to save your own life, takes place at <10ft. I would be very interested to know at what distance the average LEO fires on a human target.


----------



## JohnRov

Tilton said:


> Without rereading all of the posts, I do not recall you ever posting any statics about the general public's firearm competency, so you really lack the ability to make that argument with any real plausibility. Also, there is a very, very significant difference in "general population" and the citizen gun enthusiasts sectors. I can assure you that if you chose somebody, at random, off the street, they would not be as competent as a police officer in at least 99 out of 100 cases. Indeed, it would be a free money bet. Less than half of Americans have a gun in the household and less than one-third of all guns in America are hand guns. It can be inferred, then, that a significant majority of American households do not even own a handgun. If you do not own a hand gun, you are extremely unlikely to be as competent as an LEO, unless, of course, you are a former LEO, which brings us back to the "general population vs. LEO" argument.


I believe Dr. Gary Kleck found a higher hit rate for civilians in encounters where they used a gun than LEOs. Of course we aren't talking about random people, we are talking about non-LEOs who own and carry guns.

Don Kate found that mistakenly shooting an innocent occurs about 2 percent of the time for civilian use of firearms and 11 percent in police use.

I believe it is Kleck as well that found that non-LEOs kill 2-3x more criminals per year than police.


----------



## Tilton

JohnRov said:


> I believe Dr. Gary Kleck found a higher hit rate for civilians in encounters where they used a gun than LEOs. Of course we aren't talking about random people, we are talking about non-LEOs who own and carry guns.
> 
> Don Kate found that mistakenly shooting an innocent occurs about 2 percent of the time for civilian use of firearms and 11 percent in police use.
> 
> I believe it is Kleck as well that found that non-LEOs kill 2-3x more criminals per year than police.


Again, this information, as it relates to competency and accuracy, is absolutely meaningless without knowing the distance form shooter to target.

Just to play the devil's advocate, I would be willing to bet that a person with a CCW is significantly more likely to shoot a criminal than a police officer is. Simply being in a PO uniform is enough to deter 99% of the situations in which someone is shot with a CCW. I'd be VERY surprised if the ratio of muggings/hold ups of civilians to uniformed police officers is more frequent than 1:100,000 and muggins/hold ups and home break ins are almost exclusively the situations where a civilians uses a CCW.


----------



## Tilton

JohnRov said:


> I believe it is Kleck as well that found that non-LEOs kill 2-3x more criminals per year than police.


To respond specifically to this, I would need to see the data on that to believe it. But, even so, a police officer's duty is not vigilante justice. It is to detain a criminal to have a just trial in court whereas a civilian has no such duty to a criminal. That is an apples to oranges comparison because the function of a LEO and an armed citizen under duress are absolutely different.


----------



## JohnRov

Tilton said:


> Again, this information, as it relates to competency and accuracy, is absolutely meaningless without knowing the distance form shooter to target.
> 
> Just to play the devil's advocate, I would be willing to bet that a person with a CCW is significantly more likely to shoot a criminal than a police officer is. Simply being in a PO uniform is enough to deter 99% of the situations in which someone is shot with a CCW. I'd be VERY surprised if the ratio of muggings/hold ups of civilians to uniformed police officers is more frequent than 1:100,000 and muggins/hold ups and home break ins are almost exclusively the situations where a civilians uses a CCW.


Yeah, the data is all collected after the fact so there aren't controlled studies to compare all facets for the two populations. Here is an article that has some distance data, but only for police shootings.

https://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf


----------



## Taken Aback

*Advocating the knowledge of their use*

I believe it's impossible for an average citizen to own a firearm while residing in NYC (the state is a different matter, but still difficult), so I haven't had any experience with them. That said, I do feel that the knowledge of _how_ to use one should be freely available. Firearms exist, and like knowing what to do when someone is choking or having a heart attack, a person should freely be afforded the option of learning how to use one in a situation where they need to defend a life. To my knowledge, firearm ranges are the only recourse, and they don't exist in the city, nor are they free.

I wonder if paintball would do the job....


----------



## CuffDaddy

Taken Aback said:


> I wonder if paintball would do the job....


No, it would not. Paintball guns have nothing in common with actual firearms in terms of their controls. They have nothing in common in terms of sights and manner of aiming. They have nothing in common in terms of the effects on the user of pulling the trigger. Trying to learn to shoot firearms by using a paintball marker would be like trying to learn to drive a car by pedaling a bigwheel tricycle.

Airsoft guns can at least teach you the controls of a real gun, and give you a similar sight picture, but a significant part of learning to use a firearm competently is learning to manage recoil. Only real firearms have that factor.

Of course, the challenge in learning (and maintaining) the skill of competent firearm use is a significant part of "the appeal of guns." A lot of the same parts of my brain that get switched on by doing other difficult things, such as playing golf or playing a musical instrument, get activated during target or clay shooting.


----------



## Taken Aback

I knew I should have left that smiley on.

IIRC, Airsoft guns are also illegal within city limits, but I do see how those are closer to the real thing. This actually jogs my memory of when Galoob produced waterpistols that were scale replicas of authentic firearms like the 9mm Baretta, Uzi Carbine, Mac 10, etc. I remember them being forced to to insert red contrast plastic at the muzzle tip, then forced to paint them entirely in neon and day-glo, and then just banned them outright.


----------



## Regillus

Taken Aback said:


> I believe it's impossible for an average citizen to own a firearm while residing in NYC (the state is a different matter, but still difficult), so I haven't had any experience with them. That said, I do feel that the knowledge of _how_ to use one should be freely available. Firearms exist, and like knowing what to do when someone is choking or having a heart attack, a person should freely be afforded the option of learning how to use one in a situation where they need to defend a life. To my knowledge, firearm ranges are the only recourse, and they don't exist in the city, nor are they free.
> 
> I wonder if paintball would do the job....


You can get a concealed handgun license while residing in NYC; it's just difficult.

"If you seek a concealed handgun license in NYC, you must establish the statutorily requisite mandates of showing 'proper cause.' In NYC, the NYPD has essentially defined 'proper cause,' as the carrying of substantial cash sums (or the equivalent of cash) on a regular basis." 

See link: https://pistolpermitattorneynyc.com/
:icon_study:


----------



## Howard

Ray Kelly said that he's had enough, this whole world has become a shooting gallery but there's no way to stop these shootings, what would you do if you were Ray Kelly?


----------



## hardline_42

Howard said:


> Ray Kelly said that he's had enough, this whole world has become a shooting gallery but there's no way to stop these shootings, what would you do if you were Ray Kelly?


Run for mayor.


----------



## dks202

Tilton said:


> Just another thought, but do police really shoot to maim/kill 100% of the time?


We (police) *NEVER *shoot to kill/maim. We *ALWAYS *shoot to stop the threat, and we continue firing until the threat ceases....

*100% of the time*


----------



## Tilton

dks202 said:


> We (police) *NEVER *shoot to kill/maim. We *ALWAYS *shoot to stop the threat, and we continue firing until the threat ceases....
> 
> *100% of the time*


That is exactly what I suspected, so while the argument that police are inaccurate is a theory that can certainly be advanced with empirical research, police accuracy can't simply be judged by shots on target when the target is defined by a person and police intentionally shoot "off target" in many cases.


----------



## dks202

Tilton said:


> .... and police intentionally shoot "off target" in many cases.


I have never heard of a police officer intentionally shooting "off target". Not sure what you mean...


----------



## hardline_42

Tilton said:


> That is exactly what I suspected, so while the argument that police are inaccurate is a theory that can certainly be advanced with empirical research, police accuracy can't simply be judged by shots on target when the target is defined by a person and police intentionally shoot "off target" in many cases.


Tilton, I don't think you understand what dks means. No shooting philosophy, training pedagogy or curriculum in existence (that I know of) ever advocates shooting with the purpose of maiming or killing (members with military experience, feel free to confirm or deny) but rather shooting to "stop the threat." That means aiming for and hitting the vital areas most likely to cause bodily function to cease as necessary for the threat to subside. In other words, you shoot center-mass as many times as needed to stop the threat. Whether or not the assailant is maimed or killed is irrelevant.

Also, there is no such thing as shooting a warning shot or "winging" someone, if that's what you mean by shooting "off target.". Even "suppressive fire" is something reserved for the military, whereas (again, to my knowledge) police are required to visually identify their targets before opening fire.


----------



## Bjorn

The police do fire warning shots, at least in Sweden, if or example a large group of young people start throwing rocks at them. This clearly signals that the police see the rock throwing as potentially harmful and will have no more of it. 

Other than that, if you are in the position where you need to respond with a gun, it's center mass until threat averted, or so I've been told. If you are in the position where you think you can shoot someone in the leg, I'm guessing you can probably just as well scale down the violence a notch and avoid shooting them altogether.


----------



## dks202

hardline_42 said:


> Even "suppressive fire" is something reserved for the military, whereas (again, to my knowledge) police are required to visually identify their targets before opening fire.


Only allowed by in extreme circumstances such as active shooter, rescue operations, etc....


----------



## dks202

Bjorn said:


> The police do fire warning shots, at least in Sweden,


The problem with warning shots is the bullet has to come down somewhere (on top of someone's head....). Not allowed by police in USA anywhere that I know of.


----------



## Tilton

You're right. I misunderstood. I guess my point is that if 1/3 of all police bullets fired hit a person, that's not necessarily poor accuracy given that the target is likely moving to avoid being shot and that police could potentially shoot at non-human targets, such as a vehicle engine/tires, compared to a CCW discharge, where a person is unlikely to be fleeing the weapon holder, is more likely within an arm's reach, and a CCW discharge is, generally, inherently due to a personal threat, as opposed to, say, the criminal threatening someone else. 

But, you're right, I did misunderstand.


----------



## dks202

Tilton said:


> ..... and that police could potentially shoot at non-human targets, such as a vehicle engine/tires.....


About vehicles... We don't shoot at vehicles as most people may think. If someone is driving a vehicle, and trying to run down an officer, he shoots at the driver not the vehicle. The vehicle is considered a weapon just like a gun or knife. The immediate threat is the person not the vehicle.

Trying to shoot out the tires is like trying to shoot a knife out of someone's hand.


----------



## Tilton

dks202 said:


> About vehicles... We don't shoot at vehicles as most people may think. If someone is driving a vehicle, and trying to run down an officer, he shoots at the driver not the vehicle. The vehicle is considered a weapon just like a gun or knife. The immediate threat is the person not the vehicle.
> 
> Trying to shoot out the tires is like trying to shoot a knife out of someone's hand.


Good analogy.

Like I've said, I have a CCW and am well trained to use it but I am by no means an LEO and have no similar experiences to compare, I have one friend who just finished the local academy, I watch far too much TV, and as a policy analyst, I am very cynical and see bias in quite literally all research on any subject.


----------



## dks202

Tilton said:


> Good analogy.
> 
> ...... I watch far too much TV,


TV is killing us. Crime victims expect fingerprints, DNA, phone tracking, GPS, and a suspect in custody by the end of the hour. And that's just for shoplifting!

:icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Tilton

dks202 said:


> TV is killing us. *Crime victims expect fingerprints, DNA, phone tracking, GPS, and a suspect in custody by the end of the hour. And that's just for shoplifting!*
> 
> :icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big:


Okay, I'm not that bad.

In college, I was duck hunting and got in really late after a 3 AM departure to the blind, so I brought my gun inside, locked my car, and went to bed. Woke up the next day to find myself with a broken window, missing two pair of waders, $200+ in shells, a dozen floating goose shells, a custom call, an ipod, and about 20 duck decoys.

My neighbor, a retired state trooper whom I had never talked to before, happened to be mowing his lawn when I discovered the break-in. He said "Ah, don't be thinking you're gonna get your stuff back doing that CSI: Miami ****. Check Craigslist in a couple weeks and you'll find 'em." Lo' and behold, he was right.


----------



## Howard

hardline_42 said:


> Run for mayor.


even Mayor Bloomberg won't do anything about the guns.


----------



## hardline_42

Howard said:


> even Mayor Bloomberg won't do anything about the guns.


It's not for lack of trying!

But seriously, Howard. I'll try to put this as simply as possible. We live in a Constitutional Republic. That's a fancy way of saying we are governed by rule of law (NOT popular opinion, i.e. democracy), and these laws and their implementation are limited by the Constitution of the United States.

The problem with laws is that they are only followed by the law-abiding. Criminals, by definition, do not care about laws or the consequences of breaking them. Laws alone are powerless to stop criminals, yet that's the only tool the government has at its disposal. It doesn't matter how many laws the mayor, governor, senator, congressman, president or whoever passes. Those laws will only affect the people who obey laws in the first place.

It's not a matter of Mayor Bloomberg "doing something" about the guns. It's a matter of doing something about the criminals. And it's also about the government realizing that the solution doesn't always lie with passing more laws, but giving the power back to the people so they can solve some of their own problems.


----------



## Tilton

hardline_42 said:


> It's not for lack of trying!
> 
> But seriously, Howard. I'll try to put this as simply as possible. We live in a Constitutional Republic. That's a fancy way of saying we are governed by rule of law (NOT popular opinion, i.e. democracy), and these laws and their implementation are limited by the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> The problem with laws is that they are only followed by the law-abiding. Criminals, by definition, do not care about laws or the consequences of breaking them. Laws alone are powerless to stop criminals, yet that's the only tool the government has at its disposal. It doesn't matter how many laws the mayor, governor, senator, congressman, president or whoever passes. Those laws will only affect the people who obey laws in the first place.
> 
> It's not a matter of Mayor Bloomberg "doing something" about the guns. It's a matter of doing something about the criminals. And it's also about the government realizing that the solution doesn't always lie with passing more laws, but giving the power back to the people so they can solve some of their own problems.


Spot on. That is exactly why strict gun laws don't lower the crime rate; the only people they affect are law abiding citizens. When law abiding citizens are unable to obtain a gun due to more stringent gun laws, the only armed Americans are the one with no regard for the law, ie. criminals.


----------



## sartoriallytactical

Guns are kewl. 








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Regillus

Tilton said:


> Spot on. That is exactly why strict gun laws don't lower the crime rate; the only people they affect are law abiding citizens. When law abiding citizens are unable to obtain a gun due to more stringent gun laws, the only armed Americans are the one with no regard for the law, ie. criminals.


Yes. I recall reading some years ago that; in Japan; which bans guns; the only people who have handguns are the criminals. You could buy a handgun from the yakuza for about $10,000.


----------



## Tilton

Regillus said:


> Yes. I recall reading some years ago that; in Japan; which bans guns; the only people who have handguns are the criminals. You could buy a handgun from the yakuza for about $10,000.


'Round these parts, one can buy a Glock the wrong way for $750-1000 or the right way for <$500. It is all about priorities.


----------



## dba

Bjorn said:


> Other than that, if you are in the position where you need to respond with a gun, it's center mass until threat averted, or so I've been told. If you are in the position where you think you can shoot someone in the leg, I'm guessing you can probably just as well scale down the violence a notch and avoid shooting them altogether.


A lot of times it's an issue of heart rate. During a tactical situation, once the heart rate tops 140 bpm, most people lose their fine motor skills. In the plus column, once over 140 bpm, gross motor skills are enhanced. One of the things I used to do while teaching firearms training to cops was to stress them so instead of just punching holes in paper, they had a different experience.

On one occasion, I had them unload and field strip their pistols and leave them on a towel on the ground. Then I had them go for a little jog wherein they would have to overcome some "tests." Part of it was an obstacle course; part of it was a 45 second fight with another trainer in a padded suit, where the officer would need to use their baton to subdue the subject. The jog ended back at the range where the officer would put together his pistol and try to shoot for effect.

The results were dramatic. Some officers had a lot of difficulty in reassembling their pistols. Although most hit the target, only the most aerobically fit officers hit what they wanted. Long story, dull; my point is even if officers could try to hit an offender's legs, they might not be able too. Center mass is usually the easiest to hit. Although it's not always the best place to aim.

In another class, I lined officers across from a partner with approximately 15 feet of distance between them. I had one line aim a red training gun at the "bad guy" across from them. While looking over the sight of their guns, they realized that the gun and their outstretched arms completely blocked the view of the "bad guys'" hands. By simply lowering their arms and aiming at the hip girdle, they could see what was happening with their opponents' hands. When needed, a couple of rounds to someone's hip girdle, will usually bring them down.


----------



## edhillpr

This is an interesting thread. 
It's interesting that some fear having their fellow man own a gun, because of incompetence. Given the poor driving I see in Atlanta, perhaps this is a some what reasonable fear.

However, given the Gary Kleck statistics on defensive gun use, I believe I can trust most lawful gun owners to avoid mischief. I have to agree with those who say to get training. I've had training and practice as part of my approach to shooting for self defense and for sport, since I've competed in Glock GSSF events and IDPA.

A gun can be valuable against attackers when traveling. My friend, who is a water quality engineer, chased away would-be robbers with his pistol, while staying at a hotel on business travel.

There are internet posters that would happily deny gun owners the right to defend themselves. Of course, I sleep well at night knowing that internet opponents of gun rights are powerless to hinder our gun rights.


----------

