# Every gentleman should have a pistol



## Dr James Ryan

Im curious as to how many here enjoy pistols and revolvers. What do you think is the classiest model? I am partial to a blued 1911 with rosewood grips, such as this:









A bit of holster wear adds character too, in my opinion.

While we're on the subject, do any of you carry, and if so how you fit your piece into your wardrobe selection? In a suit, I like a full sized 1911, strong side, outside the wasteband. Without a jacket, or at work where it needs to be 100% concealed, I like a subcompact glock, crossdraw, tucked inside of my shirt. I find crossdraw the only way to properly conceal without a jacket.


----------



## benecios

I have been lurking around here for some time.On reading this post I realise I should be somewhere else.The differences between the US and the UK are too great.


----------



## gordgekko

Yes, like the fact that you have a much higher crime rate than the U.S. 

Hmmm, I've always loved the retro charm of a Colt 1911 as well so if I had to choose I'd go with that one.

Is their a trad handgun? 


---------------------
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam


----------



## benecios

I don't want to get into a fight about who has the most crime,although I am sure our gun related crime is substantially lower(see Bowling For Columbine).I was commenting that maybe what is seen as stylish/fashionable in the US is probably not so in the UK.Thats all.


----------



## DougNZ

I'm not certain that weapons are appropriate for discussion on this forum.


----------



## josepidal

I take exception to the statement in the subject and the premise of this post.


----------



## Nantucket Red

> quote:_Originally posted by gordgekko_
> 
> Yes, like the fact that you have a much higher crime rate than the U.S.
> 
> Hmmm, I've always loved the retro charm of a Colt 1911 as well so if I had to choose I'd go with that one.
> 
> Is their a trad handgun?
> 
> ---------------------
> Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam


I think the 1911 would be high on the list of trad handguns.

-------------------------------------------------
God gave us women; the Devil gave them corsets.
- French proverb


----------



## benecios

Thanks for your support guys.I am not judging,its just that over here its illegal so not even up for discussion.


----------



## gordgekko

> quote:_Originally posted by benecios_
> 
> I don't want to get into a fight about who has the most crime,although I am sure our gun related crime is substantially lower(see Bowling For Columbine).I was commenting that maybe what is seen as stylish/fashionable in the US is probably not so in the UK.Thats all.


Fair enough, but official statistics from my American and British cousins show that in several major categories the crime rate is indeed much higher in the U.K. than the U.S.

By the way, take what Mr. Moore says with a box of salt. As reported by your own media, crimes involving firearms have exploded in England recent years. Gun bans only take firearms from non-criminals.



> quote:I think the 1911 would be high on the list of trad handguns.


I would think you are right. American made, not terribly flashy but reliable as all get out.

---------------------
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam


----------



## Dr James Ryan

Folks, I dont want this to turn political. Im just looking for a little stylistic discussion on a functional accessory I like to wear from time to time. 

1911 is definately a trad pistol.


----------



## DougNZ

Regardless, I find the discussion of potentially deadly weapons on this international clothing forum to be abhorrent.

I am not against weapons, per se, but I do not log in here to discuss them.


----------



## DougNZ

> quote: ... functional accessory ...


I don't know which to tell you first: "Grow up" or "Get a life". You must be a very small man.


----------



## bystander

Why in heaven's name should one have a revolver (unless one is employed in security and defence forces)? I have never ever in my many, many, and yet many years of visiting men's clothing stores and departments seen or heard anything about firearms being a fashion accessory for men.

I think gun lovers have every right to an opinion, but it is also quite appropriate for such a discussion to be carried out in a gun and firearms forum, not a men's fashion forum where even the most exciting things are limited to humdrum stuff like polishing shoes, colour of ties, style of a particular tailor, type of luggage, etc

My apologies, in advance, to who ever may take offence from my remarks


----------



## RichardS

[}][:0][xx(][?]


----------



## Rich

I don't "enjoy pistols and revolvers", I don't find them "classy" or to possess "character". Must be a cultural difference.


----------



## Bonhamesque

I am with benecios and DougNZ.

Please grow up, and then please get a life! [V]


----------



## Rich

> quote:_Originally posted by billhewak_
> 
> -just to go on a tangent, I wonder if tailors who make shirts for gun-totin' types ever get requests to "leave room' for the pistol...? In other words, do they take measurements while their customer is wearing his body holster, and leave extra room so as to reduce the "bulge"?
> 
> BH


Well, tailors will certainly allow for wallet bulge if you ask them, so why not pistol bulge? How did James Bond manage?


----------



## Aus_MD

> quote:_Originally posted by gordgekko_
> Fair enough, but official statistics from my American and British cousins show that in several major categories the crime rate is indeed much higher in the U.K. than the U.S.


This is really meaningless, because crime rates do not reflect the incidence of crime, but the rate that crimes come to the attention of various authorities. For example the reporting of rape varies substantially from culture to culture, and from country to country. The best comparisons are for homicide, where almost all come to official notice.

However, even if are made, any conclusion that crime rates were based on rates of gun ownership would be an example of the logical fallacy _post hoc ergo propter hoc_. Just because there is correlation between two observations one cannot conclude that there is a causal relationship.

Australia and New Zealand, with low levels of gun ownership, have much lower rates of violent crime than the US.

Aus_MD

edit: spelling


----------



## Dr James Ryan

> quote:_Originally posted by billhewak_
> 
> -just to go on a tangent, I wonder if tailors who make shirts for gun-totin' types ever get requests to "leave room' for the pistol...? In other words, do they take measurements while their customer is wearing his body holster, and leave extra room so as to reduce the "bulge"?
> 
> BH


I've never had to make adjustment to my shirts, but this is the way I've had all my suits and trousers made in the last 5 years. With 1 exception (hey, he was French,) every tailer I've used has been very professional and accomodating. It is not an uncommon request in the US.


----------



## dorian

> quote:_Originally posted by Dr James Ryan_
> 
> With 1 exception (hey, he was French,) every tailer I've used has been very professional and accomodating.


But could he spell?


----------



## Liberty Ship

I think that there are quite a few of us here who struggle with the concealed carry/fashion issue. Nothing ruins the lines of a suit faster than a waist band carry; and it makes you look 20 pounds heavier! But really, that's the best alternative. A good tailor can help you with a high riding shoulder rig with a small handgun, but shoulder holsters open up a whole lot of other problems.

I like a compact Glock (36) with a Fobus paddle holster. You can put it on or take it off without having to unbuckle your belt. That way if you have to go into a restricted area, it's easy to remove the whole rig which is something that is very difficult with a shoulder holster.

I agree about the blued 1911 with rosewood. 1911 was my carry gun for almost 20 years before I went to Glock. I think my backup is classy looking, too:



The interesting thing is that when you carry, you think it really shows but most people never notice. Except other people who carry are pretty quick to pick up on it. Kind of like in "Highlander."

Summertime in hot climates can be a challenge. Wearing a "photographer's vest" can be a dead giveaway. Recently, I picked up one of these and it's well ventilated and cool and casual with a generous cut for ccw:





I do think this is worthy discussion for these forums, but in deference to those who find it to be outside their ken, it might be more appropriate to The Interchange. Don't know if an administrator can move it or how that works...


----------



## RJman

Whether gentlemen need to have a pistol or not, why do certain of you need to carry one regularly concealed in your clothing? Are you members of some law enforcement service? Do you live in the threat of bodily harm? Or do you just carry concealed weapons for fun?



*************
RJman. Accept no imitations.


----------



## Étienne

I share entirely Doug and Rich's opinion. I will also try to refrain from entering any political argument on the subject. But I cannot resist a side remark.



> quote:_Originally posted by gordgekko_
> Gun bans only take firearms from non-criminals.


Brazil recently made a huge campaign to decommission as many weapons as possible. About 300,000 were turned to the authorities. Gun-related deaths then dropped for the first time in 13 years.


----------



## RJman

> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by gordgekko_Gun bans only take firearms from non-criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> Brazil recently made a huge campaign to decommission as many weapons as possible. About 300,000 were turned to the authorities. Gun-related deaths then dropped for the first time in 13 years.
Click to expand...

Clearly the decreased number of deaths reflects a decrease in the number of criminals killed in self-defense by law-abiding citizens.

*************
RJman. Accept no imitations.


----------



## benecios

RJman,that is very funny!!!


----------



## [email protected]

*shoots RJ*


----------



## Briguy

I for one have wanted to bring up the topic of concealment for some time, but was hesitant to, concerned that it would devolve into a political *issing contest.

I carry a 1911 daily, either a Wilson lightweight full-size, or a customized Kimber full-size with the grip cut to officers length and all of the usual 1911 upgrades made. I have found it most difficult to conceal when wearing a suit or sport coat, as I don't want the jacket to be excessively loose when the pistol is not worn. My tailor has been great in working with me to get the fit just right. I use a CTAC IWB or a Rosen ARG, both work well, but I think there is still room for improvement. 

Most definitely, a pistol is NOT a fashion accessory. It is a piece of safety equipment, no more, no less. 

For those not familiar with how this works in the US, to legally carry a concealed pistol, I had to apply for a carry permit which required a background investigation, the approval of my permit by my local police department, state police, and federal authorities, my appearance before a three person board consisting of the local prosecuting attorney, a state police representative, and a representative of the county sheriff, and includes a mandatory training requirement, including annual training minimums. 

Quite honestly, I'm far better trained now then I was during the six years I worked as a police officer.


----------



## dorian

> quote:_Originally posted by RJman_
> 
> Whether gentlemen need to have a pistol or not, why do certain of you need to carry one regularly concealed in your clothing? Are you members of some law enforcement service? Do you live in the threat of bodily harm? Or do you just carry concealed weapons for fun?
> 
> *************
> RJman. Accept no imitations.


Why, for fun. Obviously. [}]

In all seriousness, though, here is in an interesting fact: Prince Ali and Prince Hashim, both of Jordan, are allowed to carry pistols on commercial airline flights. No, really. They carry at all times, and so are members of rather special supra-legal group! Pretty cool, if you ask me.

As for carrying a firearm when not faced with Islamic extremist threats as members of a secular royal family ruling over a nation of muslims, I think it's pretty silly. Hire an f-ing bodyman and you won't have to worry about the lines of your suit. [}]


----------



## dorian

> quote:_Originally posted by RJman_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by gordgekko_Gun bans only take firearms from non-criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> Brazil recently made a huge campaign to decommission as many weapons as possible. About 300,000 were turned to the authorities. Gun-related deaths then dropped for the first time in 13 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly the decreased number of deaths reflects a decrease in the number of criminals killed in self-defense by law-abiding citizens.
> 
> *************
> RJman. Accept no imitations.
Click to expand...

[^] RJsarcasm. Accept no limitations.


----------



## 15152

I live in the UK and used to carry a Glock 17 almost all the time. 

Some people in my own country are very naive and ignorant about the life some of us have to lead. There are tens of thousands of people carrying pistols daily there, and I am not talking about criminals.


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by RJman_
> 
> Whether gentlemen need to have a pistol or not, why do certain of you need to carry one regularly concealed in your clothing? Are you members of some law enforcement service? Do you live in the threat of bodily harm? Or do you just carry concealed weapons for fun?
> 
> *************
> RJman. Accept no imitations.


On the highest level, it's a lifestyle and a mindset. Some people get it, some don't. But on a lower, or "tactical" level, often people are called upon to go in harms way, or to escort people into harm's way, in their normal course of business. For example, to evaluate large, vacant buildings in bad parts of town. Unreliable cell phone service, poorly defined locations, and a 1 hour police response time to an assault that might start and finish in 5 minutes is a likely equation. If you have had proper and extensive training, and the law provides for you do do so, who in their right mind would eschew their right to the means of effective defense of themselves and those in their care?


----------



## benecios

DD will that be Drug Dealer then?


----------



## RJman

I didn't mean to offend with my _first_ post in this thread, I simply was curious about why posters who did carried concealed weapons. I did not mean to imply that there was no reason to carry one, and if your job is to do what you describe, Libery Ship, then I'd say you have a reason to carry. So, uh, no going business casual for you gun-toting folk then?

*************
RJman. Accept no imitations.


----------



## benecios

Liberty Ship,I agree completely that some people need a pistol in their line of work but surely in that case the criteria for choosing one would be which is the most effective.Not which is the most "trad" or "stylish".


----------



## Étienne

> quote:_Originally posted by RJman_
> Clearly the decreased number of deaths reflects a decrease in the number of criminals killed in self-defense by law-abiding citizens.


RJ, you just made my day.


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by benecios_
> 
> Liberty Ship,I agree completely that some people need a pistol in their line of work but surely in that case the criteria for choosing one would be which is the most effective.Not which is the most "trad" or "stylish".


Well, that's interesting. There is a certain bravado that you find in the Gun Culture that includes a sort of gallows humor as well as irony. It sometimes confuses "outsiders." I think that a discussion of which guns, as a fashion accessory, are "trad" or "stylish" is amusing.

More seriously, in the Kendo (Way of the Sword) subset of Bushido, there is a word I can't remember and, not knowing Japanese, can not begin to look up, that conveys the notion of the advantage a warrior gets from wielding a weapon that he finds aesthetically pleasing. So the discussion might not be so trite after all!


----------



## Nantucket Red

Personally, I've never owned or used a handgun, though I have shot a rifle on a firing range a few times.

I see nothing wrong with this particular discussion. I can appreciate that some people are concerned about the issue of concealed carry for legitimate reasons. 

One of my best friends has a concealed carry permit, not that he carries, but if he were in a situation where ne needed to for some reason, he could. He is skilled with firearms.

I find many handguns aesthetically pleasing too.

I'm not the one to judge whether this topic is appropriate on this forum, but I don't think its author deserves to be flamed for posting.

-------------------------------------------------
God gave us women; the Devil gave them corsets.
- French proverb


----------



## globetrotter

there has been a long running thread in the "interchange" for a while discussing this, and there is a second thread just recently started about hunting that has touched this. 

I think the idea of a firearm as fashion accessory is abhorrent, stupid, a sign of immaturity and dangerous. 

If you are in the business of killing people, or in a situation where you have a good chance that you may need to kill somebody, then by all means get the best tool for the job possible. how that tool looks (which the exception of the concelability issue) should be way down on the list of critiera that you use when choosing the firearm. 

I have nothing against firearms, I would be honestly suprised if there is any other regular memeber here who has the background that I have with firearms - I was in reconosance for an airborn unit of a very well regarded military during the time of war, both as a regular and later as a reservist as well as serving in a number of security related areas in "civillian life", and I saw this not in any way to brag but because I know that, inevitably some hillbilly is going to attack my manhood and suggest that I don't like cool guns because I am a communist and a fairy - but the idea that a adult would chose to carry a firearm because of how cool it looks strikes me as idiocy. 

1. - and I know that this isn't the same experience that many people who post here have, but this has been my experience - the guys I know who were profetional gunmen, don't collect or keep firearms later in life. the ones who end up collecting firearms are those guys who weren't able to do it in real life and spend the rest of thier lives regretting it and reliving it. 

2. firearms are dangerous. I honestly don't think that most people who are not pros know how to handle firearms well enough to be safe with them. and again, everybody is going to come out and say how their father tought them when they were 6, and they know how to handle a firearm, etc etc. I don't buy it - there are too many accidental deaths in this country from firearms, there are too many deaths caused by firearms that were stolen from people who didn't secure their fireamrs well. if you don't need a firearm, having it is just an invitation to an accedent, or to have that firearm stolen and entered into the pool of illigal weapons in this country. 

3. firearms aren't that helpfull - if you aren't very well trained, and you don't live well prepared (and, no matter how well prepared you are, if you are a civillian with no background as a leo or in the military, or you haven't gone to one of those bootcamps where they teach you for 6 weeks or more how to use a firearm, you aren't prepared) your ability to influence any encounter that you may have is so small that it simply isn't worth the cost and the risk inloved. you would be better off taking a martial arts course, or carrying a means of non-leathal protection like a stick or tear gas. 

4. the chance of your being in an encounter where you can influence the outcome only because you have a firearm is very slight - lets put it this way: if you are attacked by an unarmed teenager, a stick will be just as helpful, if not more so, than a firearm. if you are atttacked by 3 guys with shotguns, that handgun you have isn't going to influence the outcome, with them being awake and full of adrenaline and in the robbery business, and you being asleep and a civillian. so you are taking a risk that exactly the right level of problem will fall on you that your firearm will allow you to solve, wich is pretty unlikley

5. it is much more likly that somebody in your household will have a heart attack than you will have a situation that a firearm will solve. a defibrilator, which has been proven to be a huge life saving tool, costs about what a handgun does. wouldn't it be a better investment to have a defibrillator? and if you are so concerned with protection your families life, and so convinced that a firearm is a rational tool to save your families life, then why have a firearm before a defibrillator?

6. choosing a firearm because it looks cool gets people killed. yes, the 1911 is a very trad weapon. in all probability it is not the weapon for you. the weapon you have should reflect the what the most common threats will be, your physical abilities, and the limitations of your presumed field of conflict. with all of the excellent firearms and weapons out there today, I can't imagine why anybody would carry the 1911, unless he thought that it looked cool. ( I came back to edit this after seeing somebody say that he carries a 1911 - I didn't mean this as a personal reference to you, I meant this in general. maybe this is the best weapon for you)


----------



## mpcsb

Why does every gentleman need a pistol? Shotguns or rifles for hunting, yes by all means, but a pistol. What is a "trad" pistol, something one carries on the train into the city to work or maybe the theater? If pistols were trad Brooks would sell them. 

Actually I have no problem with guns, pistols, shotguns, rifles, whatever. I was raised with rifles and shotguns but then I also was taught how to hunt. We never had pistols, and as far as I know didn't know and do not now know anyone with a pistol. If any I know does have one they've never mentioned it. I just think it funny referring to certain pistols as "trad" - sort of like saying a poly. navy blazer is "trad".


----------



## [email protected]

*shoots zach for editing post in violation of rule 7*


----------



## Fritz

I have no idea what carrying a concealed weapon has to do with being a gentleman. IF you need to carry for legitimate reason, that's a different issue. Personally I canâ€™t think of a single incident in my entire life where I felt threatened enough as to even remotely justify the use of a gun. Perhaps I should get out more. 

Looking at the above posts and where they come from there seems to be cultural divide between the US and , umh, the rest of the world!? When my best friend was about ten years old, her mom wanted to move to Texas for career reasons. She had the job lined up, was set to go. Mom and daughter travelled to Texas to go house-hunting. During their stay, the neighbour of the people they were staying with shot his kid. Accidentally, of course, but you know, dead is dead. So the mom said: â€œno way my kid is growing up hereâ€ and came back to Germany.


----------



## Nantucket Red

> quote:_Originally posted by [email protected]_
> 
> *shoots zach for editing post in violation of rule 7*


Rule #7 has been changed to rule #5

-------------------------------------------------
God gave us women; the Devil gave them corsets.
- French proverb


----------



## armorique4

Maybe the influx of hostile populations into European countries will, one day, lead to carrying of firearms as a necessity. Hard to discount...........

Nothing to do with clothing per se...


----------



## [email protected]

> quote:Rule #7 has been changed to rule #5


and if i go back and edit it, i will be guilty of violating said rule and someone will have to produce a pistol and shoot me...dear god....now look at my dilemma


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by [email protected]_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:Rule #7 has been changed to rule #5
> 
> 
> 
> and if i go back and edit it, i will be guilty of violating said rule and someone will have to produce a pistol and shoot me...dear god....now look at my dilemma
Click to expand...

I won't tell if you won't tell, Matt.


----------



## Fritz

> quote:_Originally posted by [email protected]_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:Rule #7 has been changed to rule #5
> 
> 
> 
> and if i go back and edit it, i will be guilty of violating said rule and someone will have to produce a pistol and shoot me...dear god....now look at my dilemma
Click to expand...

Now you shot Zach for all the wrong reasons. How does that make you feel now?


----------



## nation

Why do some carry guns. Isn't it obvious: In case you come across some villian wearing a notched lapel tuxedo!


----------



## 15152

> quoteD will that be Drug Dealer then?


Yes, I have only joined AAAC since the â€œhoodieâ€ section of SF went offline.

I agree that to carry a firearm as some fashion accessory is abhorrent, the point I was making was that UK based members cannot get on some sort of holier than thou high horse about the US, when as a UK resident I was forced to carry a firearm 24/7 for my protection, as were both my brothers, my father and many friends.

Before I am accused of any crimes, these were government supplied and approved.

Those members who have never in their lives felt the need for such an item, are fortunate indeed, but they should realise that not all of us live in such circumstances.

I also agree with Globetrotter that the ability to influence any situation by use of a firearm is limited, however that is directly related to the actual engaging of a target. On many occasions the threat of a firearm is enough to diffuse the situation, and even if the holder is relatively untrained, to engage them means the assailant is placing his safely on a belief that he will not be hit due to this. Most people would not bet their life on such a conclusion.

Lets not fall into the trap that many in the UK do of believing a firearm is only appropriate and used when threatened by a firearm, It is not, there are many circumstances when it is useful. People I know have been beaten to death, I am sure their families wished they had taken their gun with them that night. There are no guarantees, but they may have had a chance


----------



## AlanC

We need to have resident experts JLibourel and DukeGrad chime in on this; I'm sure they will have excellent insight.


----------



## Cantabrigian

1. My father has a friend who's a police officer in LA. I only met him once - when I was 7 - but I believe he was required to or at least strongly encouraged to carry a gun with him at all times. He didn't seem to care about clothing but someone in a similar situation could care about his suits.

2. I can't wait for a certain TC to pop in here and ask where he can get a bespoke jewel-encrusted gun.

3. I think the gun you posted is ugly. I don't know the first thing about the quality of guns but wouldn't something like this be more of a gentleman's gun?

(from galleryofguns.com)

OR for the _real_ gentleman...

(from: Replica Guns & Sword Store)


----------



## ChubbyTiger

Gentlemen! Whatever the reason that Dr James Ryan chooses to carry a pistol is beyond the scope of his question. And there is definately no need to start calling names when all he asked was what pistols were carried by members here and how they worked said firearm into their wardrobe. For all you know, he works for the federal government or for a private security agency where he _must_ carry a weapon in order to do his job.

I do not carry a weapon, as I live in NYC, but I agree that the 1911 model is an attractive pistol. For actual carrying purposes, I might tend towards something sans hammer, to prevent it getting caught on clothing. I imagine that a sack suit would also help with concealment.

dorian - you'd be surprized how many people are actually allowed to carry firearms on commercial flights. A small percentage, to be sure, but more than you might think.

Remember boys and girls:
discussion of the topic = good
ad hominem attacks = bad

CT


----------



## Clovis

> quote:_Originally posted by Dr James Ryan_
> 
> I am partial to a blued 1911 with rosewood grips, such as this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A bit of holster wear adds character too, in my opinion.
> 
> While we're on the subject, do any of you carry, and if so how you fit your piece into your wardrobe selection? In a suit, I like a full sized 1911, strong side, outside the wasteband. Without a jacket, or at work where it needs to be 100% concealed, I like a subcompact glock, crossdraw, tucked inside of my shirt. I find crossdraw the only way to properly conceal without a jacket.


The bulk and weight of a full size 1911 seems a bit much to me. In fact I find my Beretta 92 to be cumbersome and its knockdown power to be inadequate. A short colt 357 is Ideal in my book.

Clovis is what Clovis does.


----------



## RJman

I'm waiting for a certain refined [_sic_] member to chime in here about how he prefers a Walther PPK 7.65 mm in a chamois Berns-Martin triple-draw holster. No wait, that would mean he'd actually _read _ a Bond _book_. Sigh.

*************
RJman. Accept no imitations.


----------



## Clovis

> quote:_Originally posted by Fritz_
> 
> I have no idea what carrying a concealed weapon has to do with being a gentleman. IF you need to carry for legitimate reason, that's a different issue. Personally I canâ€™t think of a single incident in my entire life where I felt threatened enough as to even remotely justify the use of a gun. Perhaps I should get out more.
> 
> Looking at the above posts and where they come from there seems to be cultural divide between the US and , umh, the rest of the world!? When my best friend was about ten years old, her mom wanted to move to Texas for career reasons. She had the job lined up, was set to go. Mom and daughter travelled to Texas to go house-hunting. During their stay, the neighbour of the people they were staying with shot his kid. Accidentally, of course, but you know, dead is dead. So the mom said: â€œno way my kid is growing up hereâ€ and came back to Germany.


As a nation we tend to tolerate or embrace violence but are frightened by and or repressive of nudity and sexualtiy. I am not sure what the root cause of this is.

Clovis is what Clovis does.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Clovis_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Fritz_
> 
> I have no idea what carrying a concealed weapon has to do with being a gentleman. IF you need to carry for legitimate reason, that's a different issue. Personally I canâ€™t think of a single incident in my entire life where I felt threatened enough as to even remotely justify the use of a gun. Perhaps I should get out more.
> 
> Looking at the above posts and where they come from there seems to be cultural divide between the US and , umh, the rest of the world!? When my best friend was about ten years old, her mom wanted to move to Texas for career reasons. She had the job lined up, was set to go. Mom and daughter travelled to Texas to go house-hunting. During their stay, the neighbour of the people they were staying with shot his kid. Accidentally, of course, but you know, dead is dead. So the mom said: â€œno way my kid is growing up hereâ€ and came back to Germany.
> 
> 
> 
> As a nation we tend to tolerate or embrace violence but are frightened by and or repressive of nudity and sexualtiy. I am not sure what the root cause of this is.
> 
> Clovis is what Clovis does.
Click to expand...

I saw a review once on a knife fighting video (long story) where this guy was basically saying how he loved the video, but the demonstrator used rough language, so he was upset because he wanted to be able to practice with his young (maybe 5 or 6 years old) son in the room. I was pretty astounded - you care about your son hearing a few curse words, but you think it is perfectly acceptable for him to watch his daddy practice knife fighting?


----------



## Fogey

It's much more important for every gentleman to be hesitant to use violence.


----------



## FlatSix

By the way, forum members, if you want to know more about Globe's stance on firearms you can watch the movie based on his life - "Munich". The *real* Globe is shorter than Eric Bana but even more anguish-ridden.

Sometimes items which are capable of killing other people are *fun!* Half of the guys on here are car nuts, even though you're more likely in this or any other country to be killed by a car than a firearm. Others cheerfully buy Chinese-made clothes and support the government which kills its citizens; and we're all filling up with gasoline or diesel, or taking public transportation which does, and funding the world's eventual submission to _sharia_ law.

I have had occasion to use a firearm in social occasions, as Jeff Cooper would say, and it tempers my enjoyment of a beautiful gun not a whit. I am no longer in a business where I feel a sense of personal danger, but if I did I might tote *my* Walther PP .32 ACP around. It was a West Berlin police service arm for many years prior to coming into my possession. And though there are better choices to defend one's life, there are few more innately satisfying.

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

"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


----------



## dorian

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> It's much more important for every gentleman to be hesitant to use violence.


Hmmm... Funny you should mention that. I somehow wound up being punched twice last Monday eve walking in Picadilly (sticking up for a friend - with no idea how the argument began). One punch, stared at the French thug, muttered something about him being deported, took another punch to the forehead and watched him run onto a bus.

Luckily, I'm thick skulled and came away with nothing but a half inch scratch under my eye. I have since been wondering why I didn't punch back and instead simply stood my ground - at least I shocked the guy into running off.

Now I can tell myself it was because I am gentleman. [)]


----------



## bystander

Good post, *globetrotter*


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> I have had occasion to use a firearm in social occasions


this is a strange statement.


----------



## dorian

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> I have had occasion to use a firearm in social occasions
> 
> 
> 
> this is a strange statement.
Click to expand...

What, never disliked someone at a dinner party?


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by dorian_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> It's much more important for every gentleman to be hesitant to use violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... Funny you should mention that. I somehow wound up being punched twice last Monday eve walking in Picadilly (sticking up for a friend - with no idea how the argument began). One punch, stared at the French thug, muttered something about him being deported, took another punch to the forehead and watched him run onto a bus.
> 
> Luckily, I'm thick skulled and came away with nothing but a half inch scratch under my eye. I have since been wondering why I didn't punch back and instead simply stood my ground - at least I shocked the guy into running off.
> 
> Now I can tell myself it was because I am gentleman. [)]
Click to expand...

I think that you did, in fact, handle yourself as a gentleman.

1. you stood up for a friend

2. you went home to your family/loved ones/cat what ever.

3. the other guy went home to his family/loved ones/ jerry lewish movie, what ever.

nothing to be ashamed of, or worried about.

would your life be better or worse now if you had introduced a weapon into the situation, or even if you had jumped on him and pummeled him? your life wouldn't be any better, and it may be a little worse.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by bystander_
> 
> Good post, *globetrotter*


thank you. now watch the flaming roll


----------



## Mr. Knightly

> quote:_Originally posted by dorian_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> It's much more important for every gentleman to be hesitant to use violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... Funny you should mention that. I somehow wound up being punched twice last Monday eve walking in Picadilly (sticking up for a friend - with no idea how the argument began). One punch, stared at the French thug, muttered something about him being deported, took another punch to the forehead and watched him run onto a bus.
> 
> Luckily, I'm thick skulled and came away with nothing but a half inch scratch under my eye. I have since been wondering why I didn't punch back and instead simply stood my ground - at least I shocked the guy into running off.
> 
> Now I can tell myself it was because I am gentleman. [)]
Click to expand...

It's shocking how well this can work. I have a friend who spent about 6 months trying to avoid the boyfriend of a girl with whom he had screwed around. When the finally met face to face in a crowded room, the much bigger boyfriend nailed my friend across the jaw. They guy was huge but, fortunately for my friend, he didn't know the first thing about how to punch someone. My friend staggered back a bit but was fine. In front of a silent room, he said to the hulking barbarian, "are we done now?" Brute responded, "yeah." That was the end of it. My friend had been afraid of him for months and he came out of it looking like a hero. Didn't have to do a thing.

Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express'd in fancy; rich, not gaudy;
For the apparel oft proclaims the man.


----------



## Nantucket Red

If we're discussing _gentlemen's_ firearms, I think we need to consider duelling pistols.

-------------------------------------------------
God gave us women; the Devil gave them corsets.
- French proverb


----------



## Lord Berners

The idea of carrying a gun on any occasion makes me rather ill.

That being said, there was always something so stylish about the Luger.

I love the fact that eventhough production stopped in late 1943, they had to re-open the factorys after WWII to keep up with the demand for lugers as souveniers for Allied troops.

Still, there is no argument that a swift pommel on the noggin with a swagger stick can't solve. If honour must be satisfied it should be with swords...whilst wearing tight pants, puffy shirts and swinging off light fittings.

There...my 2 cents worth.

Lord Berners

"Lord Berners' Giant Erection Causes Uproar in Local Village!"

Headline from Lord Berners' private newspaper reporting the local village's outrage at his building of a 150 foot tower in nearby land.


----------



## Fritz

> quote:_Originally posted by Nantucket Red_
> 
> If we're discussing _gentlemen's_ firearms, I think we need to consider duelling pistols.
> 
> -------------------------------------------------
> God gave us women; the Devil gave them corsets.
> - French proverb


They are noisy and stinky, in other words: too modern for proper gentlemen. I so much prefer the foil.


----------



## Murrah

> quote:I am not against weapons, per se, but I do not log in here to discuss them.


Why not take that a step further and not read and post on a thread dedicated to pistols. You (and many others posting here) seem to go looking for a place to be outraged.

I don't enjoy the discussion of all things trad. Therefore, I don't post snooty comments on trad threads.

That said, Taurus has a titanium hammerless .38 that looks great for concealed carry.


----------



## Dr James Ryan

I really just wanted a friendly chat on style, but since some have leveled insults on me, Iâ€™ll try to give some insight on where Iâ€™m coming from:

99% of people fall into 1 of 3 categories when it comes to the concealed pistol debate.

1) People who have little or no experience with firearms. They tend to fear guns as some mythic objects that are the root cause of much violence. 

2) People like globetrotter who have had training with firearms, and believe that only a select fraternity of government employees are capable of safely possessing firearms.

3) People like me who trust their fellow citizens to own firearms and make safe decisions, but expect negligent individuals to be held responsible. 


Each camp, including mine, has their own cliche arguments. They're boring, and no one listens to each other anyway. In the end it boils down to how you feel about liberty. I dont really care about a 5% effect on the crime rate in either direction. I dont care if more concealed weapon holders reduces crime statistics, or if an outright ban on guns reduces crime statistics. I'm not a collectivist. What I care about is my own ability to defend my life if the need arises. I only get 1 life, and I dont need other people making these safety decisions for me in the name of their perception of "the greater good." 

I realize the chance of my ever having to use a pistol to defend myself is very small. Think of it as insurance. You dont buy insurance on toasters and consumer electronics where the probability of breakage is high, but the value is small. You buy insurance on things where the probability of breakage is low, but the value is high- things like fire insurance on your home. Given your utility functions, I could mathematically prove why fire insurance is a smart buy and toaster insurance is lousy. Well, if you value your life highly, and dont mind the costs of carrying a pistol, mathematically it's one of the best insurance buys in existence. 

For me, the cost of carrying a pistol (the insurance premium) is close to nil- it doesnâ€™t disrupt my lifestyle at all. In fact, I kind of enjoy carrying, and the peace of mind that weight on the hip brings. For others, the mental stress, social pressures, and physical annoyance of carrying a pistol drive the cost of insurance too high to be economically viable. I just ask people to consider my decision from an insurance angle, and since my choice to carry does not affect them in any way, give me a little respect.


----------



## Pickwick

> quote:_Originally posted by Murrah_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:I am not against weapons, per se, but I do not log in here to discuss them.
> 
> 
> 
> Why not take that a step further and not read and post on a thread dedicated to pistols. You (and many others posting here) seem to go looking for a place to be outraged.
Click to expand...

Very good point, couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## Literide

> quote:_Originally posted by Aus_MD_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by gordgekko_
> Fair enough, but official statistics from my American and British cousins show that in several major categories the crime rate is indeed much higher in the U.K. than the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> This is really meaningless, because crime rates do not reflect the incidence of crime, but the rate that crimes come to the attention of various authorities. For example the reporting of rape varies substantially from culture to culture, and from country to country. The best comparisons are for homicide, where almost all come to official notice.
> 
> However, even if are made, any conclusion that crime rates were based on rates of gun ownership would be an example of the logical fallacy _post hoc ergo propter hoc_. Just because there is correlation between two observations one cannot conclude that there is a causal relationship.
> 
> Australia and New Zealand, with low levels of gun ownership, have much lower rates of violent crime than the US.
> 
> Aus_MD
> 
> edit: spelling
Click to expand...

But rising alarmingly, in Oz anyway, since imposing stricter gun laws.


----------



## DukeGrad

Gentlemen

How did this one escape me.
I appreciate my German friends, as well as my British friends.
I respect your thought on this topic.
I disagree with most here.
I have used weapons in my lifetime.
I am a fan and supporter of my right, that is the right to bear arms.
I have my reasons, and am a strong proponent of this right.
I use this right, quite a bit.
I also, am able to carry a concealed weapon.
I do not at this time.
I feel very secure, with this right of mine.
I know the value of a weapon, and respect this value.
I believe an individual, who respects weapons, and what they are about, should be able to bear arms.
My work is in direct conflict with my thought regarding weapons.
I manage through this, without any problems.
I question if a weapon is a clothing statement?
Again, my German friends, and British friends.
I do not think this is about crime rates.Who has the worst?
Does it matter?
It is a simple right of mine, again, the right to bear arms.

Gentlemen, have a nice day




Jimmy


----------



## Murrah

> quote:In the end it boils down to how you feel about liberty. I dont really care about a 5% effect on the crime rate in either direction. I dont care if more concealed weapon holders reduces crime statistics, or if an outright ban on guns reduces crime statistics. I'm not a collectivist. What I care about is my own ability to defend my life if the need arises. I only get 1 life, and I dont need other people making these safety decisions for me in the name of their perception of "the greater good."


If you're not already a Texan...we have a place for you here.


----------



## floutist

I'm too nervous, to deal with guns. Would end up shooting myself, I'm sure. What about women? Should they carry a pistol?


----------



## Literide

> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> I share entirely Doug and Rich's opinion. I will also try to refrain from entering any political argument on the subject. But I cannot resist a side remark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by gordgekko_
> Gun bans only take firearms from non-criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> Brazil recently made a huge campaign to decommission as many weapons as possible. About 300,000 were turned to the authorities. Gun-related deaths then dropped for the first time in 13 years.
Click to expand...

"Gun-related deaths "

I believe they found plenty of other ways to keep the killing going. Just removing some of the guns doesnt change a violent culture. For the most part, nobody turns in the good ones or ones they may have paid good money for, but the non-functional ones or ones they really need to get rid of and can get a few bucks for rather than throw it in the river.


----------



## pinchi22

I can respect your contitutional right to bear arms, and can appreciate the instrinsic craftsmanship in a weapon, but please refrain from making any connection between shooting firearms (possibly at human beings) and being a "gentleman". I think this connection is about as tenuous as being a gentleman and hanging someone in the name of vigilante justice.


----------



## Soph

I guess if you want to carry a gun, why not get one of these, you can disable your adversary without KILLING HIM. In addition, there are many great courses in self defense available.


The modern gentleman's gun, results without death:


Constantly Improving my Sartorial Style


----------



## DaveInPhilly

> quote:_Originally posted by RJman_
> 
> Whether gentlemen need to have a pistol or not, why do certain of you need to carry one regularly concealed in your clothing? Are you members of some law enforcement service? Do you live in the threat of bodily harm? Or do you just carry concealed weapons for fun?


You forget, a good number of our members are lawyers (myself soon to be included) and there is the ever present need to protect one's self from a disgruntled former client, or client's spouse, or...well just about every other productive member of society whom we manage to screw over in one way or another.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Dr James Ryan_
> 
> I really just wanted a friendly chat on style, but since some have leveled insults on me, Iâ€™ll try to give some insight on where Iâ€™m coming from:
> 
> 99% of people fall into 1 of 3 categories when it comes to the concealed pistol debate.
> 
> 1) People who have little or no experience with firearms. They tend to fear guns as some mythic objects that are the root cause of much violence.
> 
> 2) People like globetrotter who have had training with firearms, and believe that only a select fraternity of government employees are capable of safely possessing firearms.
> 
> 3) People like me who trust their fellow citizens to own firearms and make safe decisions, but expect negligent individuals to be held responsible.
> 
> Each camp, including mine, has their own cliche arguments. They're boring, and no one listens to each other anyway. In the end it boils down to how you feel about liberty. I dont really care about a 5% effect on the crime rate in either direction. I dont care if more concealed weapon holders reduces crime statistics, or if an outright ban on guns reduces crime statistics. I'm not a collectivist. What I care about is my own ability to defend my life if the need arises. I only get 1 life, and I dont need other people making these safety decisions for me in the name of their perception of "the greater good."
> 
> I realize the chance of my ever having to use a pistol to defend myself is very small. Think of it as insurance. You dont buy insurance on toasters and consumer electronics where the probability of breakage is high, but the value is small. You buy insurance on things where the probability of breakage is low, but the value is high- things like fire insurance on your home. Given your utility functions, I could mathematically prove why fire insurance is a smart buy and toaster insurance is lousy. Well, if you value your life highly, and dont mind the costs of carrying a pistol, mathematically it's one of the best insurance buys in existence.
> 
> For me, the cost of carrying a pistol (the insurance premium) is close to nil- it doesnâ€™t disrupt my lifestyle at all. In fact, I kind of enjoy carrying, and the peace of mind that weight on the hip brings. For others, the mental stress, social pressures, and physical annoyance of carrying a pistol drive the cost of insurance too high to be economically viable. I just ask people to consider my decision from an insurance angle, and since my choice to carry does not affect them in any way, give me a little respect.


Dr. Ryan,

I apologize both for anything that I may have said that you may feel insulting, and what I may say in just now which you may feel insulting. it is not leveled at you. I am expressing my feelings as to gun ownership by civillians, and not anthing aimed at you in particular. in any event, welcome to the forum, and I am sure that, this thread aside, you will feel very welcome here. I also point out that my views are my own, and not commonly held here.

Respect is a strange issue - because it not only involved the qualities of the person who is on the recieving end, but also the person on the giving end. it could be that a very nice and very deserving person, who is gay, does not get respect from a bigoted person, because that bigoted person has his own issues, even though, all other things aside, the second person would shower the first with respect.

I have a lot of trouble giving respect to a civillian (and by that I mean somebody who has no need for it what se ever in his work or lifestyle) who choses to carry a concilled weapon, and espectially who would refer to it as a fashion item. that is not an issue with your not being deserving of respect, it is an issue of my feelings of respect. I am sorry about that, and if I were you I certainly wouldn't take it to heart.

I see this exactly as if an accountant, born and bred in nyc wears cowboy boots and a hat, only with the potential of killing innocent people by mistake.

anyway, again, welcome aboard.


----------



## Siggy

I am one of those who owns a number of guns and has some training with them. That said, I think the way this topic was brought out in this thread was in bad taste. As some have mentioned, handguns are not a fashion accessory and should not be treated as such. I certainly am able to appreciate the styling, operation and engineering of a 1911, the classic aura of a Colt Peacemaker or a Browning Hi-Power, and the pros and cons of each of these weapons for handgunning purposes or self defense. However, a post like Dr. Ryan's in a fashion forum seems a bit childish, provoking, and out of place.


----------



## Étienne

> quote:_Originally posted by Fritz_
> They are noisy and stinky, in other words: too modern for proper gentlemen. I so much prefer the foil.


You have got to be kidding. Nobody in his sane mind would duel with a foil. Foil has always been a training weapon, although it can be deadly. You would be much better with an Ã©pÃ©e.



> quote:_Originally posted by Dr James Ryan_
> I dont care if more concealed weapon holders reduces crime statistics, or if an outright ban on guns reduces crime statistics.


Dr Ryan, I don't want to turn the thread into a political debate, although it is starting to evolve into that naturally.

Yet, I cannot help being distressed by that statement. It is not a matter of being a "collectivist" but of living in a society. Every member of a society should care about the global effects of said society's choice. This is, after all, the only valid justification for restricting the freedom of individuals in the society. This is true for measures such as banning poisons, regulating the use of cars (speed limits and such), and also true when discussing regulating or nearly banning guns. At least, this is my opinion.



> quote:_Originally posted by Literide_
> For the most part, nobody turns in the good ones or ones they may have paid good money for, but the non-functional ones or ones they really need to get rid of and can get a few bucks for rather than throw it in the river.


According to government officials, the guns turned in included a great deal of modern ones, up to and including assault rifles.


----------



## Soph

If you want to make a BIG statement you could always carry one of these, GQ's guide to a modern firearm, I think this is a Prada or Gucci:



Constantly Improving my Sartorial Style


----------



## Briguy

My wife recently received her carry permit. Having been raped once as a teenager, nearly raped a second time as an adult, and having experienced the terror of being on the phone with the police dispatcher screaming for them to hurry, as a criminal was trying to force his way into her house (she was alone and unarmed), she made the decision to never, ever allow herself to be defenseless again. 

She tends to carry her pistol in her purse (designed with a holster compartment separate from the usual purse contents), as this avoids her having to dress around the gun. And, it gives her a reason to by more purses.


----------



## Literide

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> there has been a long running thread in the "interchange" for a while discussing this, and there is a second thread just recently started about hunting that has touched this.
> 
> I think the idea of a firearm as fashion accessory is abhorrent, stupid, a sign of immaturity and dangerous.
> 
> If you are in the business of killing people, or in a situation where you have a good chance that you may need to kill somebody, then by all means get the best tool for the job possible. how that tool looks (which the exception of the concelability issue) should be way down on the list of critiera that you use when choosing the firearm.
> 
> I have nothing against firearms, I would be honestly suprised if there is any other regular memeber here who has the background that I have with firearms - I was in reconosance for an airborn unit of a very well regarded military during the time of war, both as a regular and later as a reservist as well as serving in a number of security related areas in "civillian life", and I saw this not in any way to brag but because I know that, inevitably some hillbilly is going to attack my manhood and suggest that I don't like cool guns because I am a communist and a fairy - but the idea that a adult would chose to carry a firearm because of how cool it looks strikes me as idiocy.
> 
> 1. - and I know that this isn't the same experience that many people who post here have, but this has been my experience - the guys I know who were profetional gunmen, don't collect or keep firearms later in life. the ones who end up collecting firearms are those guys who weren't able to do it in real life and spend the rest of thier lives regretting it and reliving it.
> 
> 2. firearms are dangerous. I honestly don't think that most people who are not pros know how to handle firearms well enough to be safe with them. and again, everybody is going to come out and say how their father tought them when they were 6, and they know how to handle a firearm, etc etc. I don't buy it - there are too many accidental deaths in this country from firearms, there are too many deaths caused by firearms that were stolen from people who didn't secure their fireamrs well. if you don't need a firearm, having it is just an invitation to an accedent, or to have that firearm stolen and entered into the pool of illigal weapons in this country.
> 
> 3. firearms aren't that helpfull - if you aren't very well trained, and you don't live well prepared (and, no matter how well prepared you are, if you are a civillian with no background as a leo or in the military, or you haven't gone to one of those bootcamps where they teach you for 6 weeks or more how to use a firearm, you aren't prepared) your ability to influence any encounter that you may have is so small that it simply isn't worth the cost and the risk inloved. you would be better off taking a martial arts course, or carrying a means of non-leathal protection like a stick or tear gas.
> 
> 4. the chance of your being in an encounter where you can influence the outcome only because you have a firearm is very slight - lets put it this way: if you are attacked by an unarmed teenager, a stick will be just as helpful, if not more so, than a firearm. if you are atttacked by 3 guys with shotguns, that handgun you have isn't going to influence the outcome, with them being awake and full of adrenaline and in the robbery business, and you being asleep and a civillian. so you are taking a risk that exactly the right level of problem will fall on you that your firearm will allow you to solve, wich is pretty unlikley
> 
> 5. it is much more likly that somebody in your household will have a heart attack than you will have a situation that a firearm will solve. a defibrilator, which has been proven to be a huge life saving tool, costs about what a handgun does. wouldn't it be a better investment to have a defibrillator? and if you are so concerned with protection your families life, and so convinced that a firearm is a rational tool to save your families life, then why have a firearm before a defibrillator?
> 
> 6. choosing a firearm because it looks cool gets people killed. yes, the 1911 is a very trad weapon. in all probability it is not the weapon for you. the weapon you have should reflect the what the most common threats will be, your physical abilities, and the limitations of your presumed field of conflict. with all of the excellent firearms and weapons out there today, I can't imagine why anybody would carry the 1911, unless he thought that it looked cool. ( I came back to edit this after seeing somebody say that he carries a 1911 - I didn't mean this as a personal reference to you, I meant this in general. maybe this is the best weapon for you)


Globetrotter,
Agree on the training part, and drivers licenses should be harder to get too. Have you seen the stats on highway deaths? Appalling!

I'm only a shotgun guy myself, which as a Manhattan dweller is problematic, so I end up stashing them at a family country house, in a safe. Not always convenient depending upon where I am going hunting or skeet shooting, but I dont want to end up a felon in the Peoples Republic of the 5 Boros.

Since 9/11 I have often considered going the side arm route, not for fashion, but I was sure anarchy was going to break out that day. It didnt, probably because even the criminal classes were in a state of shock. I'm pretty confident though, that if another such attack takes place, that wont be the case. Particularly after what happened in New Orleans (excluding the exagerated and made up stories, the real ones were bad enough). A dirty bomb for instance, millions of people suddenly refugees on foot trying to escape Manhattan, could devolve pretty fast.

Question, How fast can an ex-military type respond to a non-gun owners home in the event of a home invasion?

Havent had to test it yet, but I hear just the sound of cocking a 12 guage pump can be enough to deter an invader.

Cheers


----------



## dah328

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> I have nothing against firearms, I would be honestly suprised if there is any other regular memeber here who has the background that I have with firearms - I was in reconosance for an airborn unit of a very well regarded military during the time of war...


Globetrotter, you've made this argument several times. I don't have the degree of background with firearms that you do, but your argument is still an example of argumentum ad verecundiam. What surprises me is that the men I know who served in elite military units, both in peacetime and otherwise, would be among the last to argue that those with less or no military experience were somehow less entitled to second ammendment privileges.

That said, on the original topic, I would be interested in hearing specific examples of accomodations tailors have made on jackets or shirts to facilitate the concealed carry of a firearm. I suspect it would be helpful in understanding the accomodations that can be made for varying body shapes.

dan


----------



## Literide

> quote:_Originally posted by dorian_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by RJman_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by gordgekko_Gun bans only take firearms from non-criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> Brazil recently made a huge campaign to decommission as many weapons as possible. About 300,000 were turned to the authorities. Gun-related deaths then dropped for the first time in 13 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly the decreased number of deaths reflects a decrease in the number of criminals killed in self-defense by law-abiding citizens.
> 
> *************
> RJman. Accept no imitations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [^] RJsarcasm. Accept no limitations.
Click to expand...

Clever sarcasm perhaps, but I think he inadvertantly hit hit on the truth.
Cheers


----------



## Soph

Constantly Improving my Sartorial Style


----------



## Étienne

> quote:_Originally posted by Literide_
> Clever sarcasm perhaps, but I think he inadvertantly hit hit on the truth.


I don't have any detailed data, but I very seriously doubt that could be the case. The most likely is a drop in accidental deaths.


----------



## Murrah

> quote:I can respect your contitutional right to bear arms, and can appreciate the instrinsic craftsmanship in a weapon, but please refrain from making any connection between shooting firearms (possibly at human beings) and being a "gentleman". I think this connection is about as tenuous as being a gentleman and hanging someone in the name of vigilante justice.


While the term "gentleman" has always been amorphous, the idea of a man who had the right to bear arms has always been a component of the concept of a "gentleman."


----------



## Literide

> quote:_Originally posted by Dr James Ryan_
> 
> I really just wanted a friendly chat on style, but since some have leveled insults on me, Iâ€™ll try to give some insight on where Iâ€™m coming from:
> 
> 99% of people fall into 1 of 3 categories when it comes to the concealed pistol debate.
> 
> 1) People who have little or no experience with firearms. They tend to fear guns as some mythic objects that are the root cause of much violence.
> 
> 2) People like globetrotter who have had training with firearms, and believe that only a select fraternity of government employees are capable of safely possessing firearms.
> 
> 3) People like me who trust their fellow citizens to own firearms and make safe decisions, but expect negligent individuals to be held responsible.
> 
> Each camp, including mine, has their own cliche arguments. They're boring, and no one listens to each other anyway. In the end it boils down to how you feel about liberty. I dont really care about a 5% effect on the crime rate in either direction. I dont care if more concealed weapon holders reduces crime statistics, or if an outright ban on guns reduces crime statistics. I'm not a collectivist. What I care about is my own ability to defend my life if the need arises. I only get 1 life, and I dont need other people making these safety decisions for me in the name of their perception of "the greater good."
> 
> I realize the chance of my ever having to use a pistol to defend myself is very small. Think of it as insurance. You dont buy insurance on toasters and consumer electronics where the probability of breakage is high, but the value is small. You buy insurance on things where the probability of breakage is low, but the value is high- things like fire insurance on your home. Given your utility functions, I could mathematically prove why fire insurance is a smart buy and toaster insurance is lousy. Well, if you value your life highly, and dont mind the costs of carrying a pistol, mathematically it's one of the best insurance buys in existence.
> 
> For me, the cost of carrying a pistol (the insurance premium) is close to nil- it doesnâ€™t disrupt my lifestyle at all. In fact, I kind of enjoy carrying, and the peace of mind that weight on the hip brings. For others, the mental stress, social pressures, and physical annoyance of carrying a pistol drive the cost of insurance too high to be economically viable. I just ask people to consider my decision from an insurance angle, and since my choice to carry does not affect them in any way, give me a little respect.


Huzzahs, Well done Dr Ryan


----------



## guyfromboston

I don't know that actually carrying a firearm, though I support that right, enhances one's status as a gentleman. However, I've been continuously surprised how many grown men I meet who don't know how to use a firearm of any kind. To my mind, it's like not knowing how to drive a car. Perhaps the bias of growing up in a fairly rural part of NW Connecticut.


----------



## Murrah

> quote:Since 9/11 I have often considered going the side arm route, not for fashion, but I was sure anarchy was going to break out that day. It didnt, probably because even the criminal classes were in a state of shock. I'm pretty confident though, that if another such attack takes place, that wont be the case. Particularly after what happened in New Orleans (excluding the exagerated and made up stories, the real ones were bad enough). A dirty bomb for instance, millions of people suddenly refugees on foot trying to escape Manhattan, could devolve pretty fast.


I took part in leaving Houston for the country when Rita looked like it would slam Houston. I was glad to have a sidearm present for the whole trip. I drove away from a potential incident at a gas station rather than stick around for the fireworks.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by dah328_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> I have nothing against firearms, I would be honestly suprised if there is any other regular memeber here who has the background that I have with firearms - I was in reconosance for an airborn unit of a very well regarded military during the time of war...
> 
> 
> 
> Globetrotter, you've made this argument several times. I don't have the degree of background with firearms that you do, but your argument is still an example of argumentum ad verecundiam. What surprises me is that the men I know who served in elite military units, both in peacetime and otherwise, would be among the last to argue that those with less or no military experience were somehow less entitled to second ammendment privileges.
> 
> That said, on the original topic, I would be interested in hearing specific examples of accomodations tailors have made on jackets or shirts to facilitate the concealed carry of a firearm. I suspect it would be helpful in understanding the accomodations that can be made for varying body shapes.
> 
> dan
Click to expand...

dan, since I have probably posted a hundred posts on this matter here and in SF, I am sure that nobody has read them all. I have stated, several times, I in no way suggest that we should limit the 2nd amendment right of anybody. I actually think that the right to own firearms, prefereably in the framework of a militia, but also otherwise, is a good right.

keep in mind, I have the right to stand on the streetcorner and shout about the end of the world comming. I do not do that, even though it is my right, for a variety of different reasons.

there are 2 things that profetionals have that others don't -

1. more skills. I can't stress this enough. honestly, I think that no matter how good you think you are with a firearm, you aren't. and I am not talking about being able to shoot a bullseye at a certain distance or what not. I am talking about the ability to use a firearm to control a conflict, and influence it in your favor, as well as to guarantee that only those people who are supposed to get hurt will get hurt.

2. need - I know how to use a firearm. I don't need one, so I don't carry one. if you really need a firearm because of where you live, move. if you really need a firearm because of your job, or lifesytle, or because your wife's crazy ex is out to get you, get a firearm, and learn to use it.

again, I in no way suggest that you shouldn't get a dessert eagle and a john wayne gunbelt and a few belts of ammo and carry them around town. that is your right. don't expect me to give you any respect for it. I think that is simple enough.


----------



## guyfromboston

Not trying to start a 2nd amendment argument, but if you think that the "pros", by whom I assume you mean the police, are more expert at safely handling firearms I think you're out of your mind. It's a running joke among serious firearms enthusiasts how often cops shoot themselves.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_
> I'm only a shotgun guy myself, which as a Manhattan dweller is problematic, so I end up stashing them at a family country house, in a safe. Not always convenient depending upon where I am going hunting or skeet shooting, but I dont want to end up a felon in the Peoples Republic of the 5 Boros.
> 
> Since 9/11 I have often considered going the side arm route, not for fashion, but I was sure anarchy was going to break out that day. It didnt, probably because even the criminal classes were in a state of shock. I'm pretty confident though, that if another such attack takes place, that wont be the case. Particularly after what happened in New Orleans (excluding the exagerated and made up stories, the real ones were bad enough). A dirty bomb for instance, millions of people suddenly refugees on foot trying to escape Manhattan, could devolve pretty fast.
> 
> Question, How fast can an ex-military type respond to a non-gun owners home in the event of a home invasion?
> 
> Havent had to test it yet, but I hear just the sound of cocking a 12 guage pump can be enough to deter an invader.
> 
> Cheers
> _


_

I have to say that after catrina I have been tempted to aquire a firearm for the home, as well. and, as somebody who didn't grow up here, I may be putting too much faith in the ability of the police to respond._


----------



## Murrah

> quote:again, I in no way suggest that you shouldn't get a dessert eagle and a john wayne gunbelt and a few belts of ammo and carry them around town. that is your right. don't expect me to give you any respect for it. I think that is simple enough.


Why do you always suggest that anyone who carries a firearm recklessly wants to play John Wayne?


----------



## In Mufti

Maybe it's more important for every LADY to have a pistol...get some grandma!

From Today's St. Louis Post Dispatch:

An 87-year-old East St. Louis woman fatally shot a man early this morning as he was trying to break into her house.

Police said they found the man, Larry D. Tillman, 49, of East St. Louis on the enclosed front porch of the womanâ€™s house in the 2100 block of Gaty Avenue. He had pulled the telephone wires from the side of the house, then removed security bars from a porch window. 

As the man was breaking through a storm door that leads into the house itself, the woman fired several shots through her front door, striking Tillman once in the chest.

Police said the shots were fired from a pistol, most likely a gun that her daughter had given her after a man broke into the elderly womanâ€™s house in December, battered her and stole some items.

The man may have been dead for as long as four hours before police arrived. Police said that the woman was not sure that she had hit Tillman when she fired the shots about 2 a.m. However, she was too afraid to go outside to check and could not call for help because the telephone lines were dead.

When the womanâ€™s daughter arrived about 6 a.m. to bring her mother breakfast, she found the dead man on the porch, police said.

Illinois State Police Master Sgt. Jim Morrisey said evidence taken from the December home invasion would be compared to the break-in today to see if Tillman was responsible for both crimes. 


Regards,


----------



## Briguy

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 3. firearms aren't that helpful - if you aren't very well trained, and you don't live well prepared (and, no matter how well prepared you are, if you are a civilian with no background as a leo or in the military, or you haven't gone to one of those bootcamps where they teach you for 6 weeks or more how to use a firearm, you aren't prepared) your ability to influence any encounter that you may have is so small that it simply isn't worth the cost and the risk inloved. you would be better off taking a martial arts course, or carrying a means of non-lethal protection like a stick or tear gas.


Indeed, if attacked by a highly professional, trained team of criminals, most folks, including the vast majority of LEOs (and I'm speaking as a former LEO) are goners. Few, outside of a swat team or similar tactical team, train for this type of encounter.

Fortunately, in most criminal attacks, the attacker breaks contact when their victim draws a firearm. From the criminal's perspective, they have just made a staggering error in judgment in picking this particular victim. Given the choice to pursue the attack, and risk getting shot, and breaking contact, they break contact.

Globetrotter, no offense taken re: 1911. I agree, this is a tool that is not appropriate for most users. Its expensive, difficult to maintain, needs skilled gunsmith support, and requires the user to be skilled at basic trouble shooting. For dialed-in users, its a superb tool.


----------



## Murrah

> quote:An 87-year-old East St. Louis woman fatally shot a man early this morning as he was trying to break into her house.


She MUST have once been in the airborne.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 3. firearms aren't that helpful - if you aren't very well trained, and you don't live well prepared (and, no matter how well prepared you are, if you are a civilian with no background as a leo or in the military, or you haven't gone to one of those bootcamps where they teach you for 6 weeks or more how to use a firearm, you aren't prepared) your ability to influence any encounter that you may have is so small that it simply isn't worth the cost and the risk inloved. you would be better off taking a martial arts course, or carrying a means of non-lethal protection like a stick or tear gas.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, if attacked by a highly professional, trained team of criminals, most folks, including the vast majority of LEOs (and I'm speaking as a former LEO) are goners. Few, outside of a swat team or similar tactical team, train for this type of encounter.
> 
> Fortunately, in most criminal attacks, the attacker breaks contact when their victim draws a firearm. From the criminal's perspective, they have just made a staggering error in judgment in picking this particular victim. Given the choice to pursue the attack, and risk getting shot, and breaking contact, they break contact.
> 
> Globetrotter, no offense taken re: 1911. I agree, this is a tool that is not appropriate for most users. Its expensive, difficult to maintain, needs skilled gunsmith support, and requires the user to be skilled at basic trouble shooting. For dialed-in users, its a superb tool.
Click to expand...

agreed on both points - I have a few night sticks and a couple of cannisters that look like fire extinguishers of CS-gas. If somebody can get past me with those, he can get past me with a handgun, but I can leave them lying around and not worry about anybody hurting themselves by accidents.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Murrah_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:again, I in no way suggest that you shouldn't get a dessert eagle and a john wayne gunbelt and a few belts of ammo and carry them around town. that is your right. don't expect me to give you any respect for it. I think that is simple enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you always suggest that anyone who carries a firearm recklessly wants to play John Wayne?
Click to expand...

here is my argument, yet again. you may not agree, but I think that is is still pretty well developed.

1. most people have no real need to carry a firearm

2.the cost benifits of carrying a firearm are a great deal less, by an order of magnitude at least, than some other tools that you could carry (a defibrilator for instance)

3.carrying a handgun, for a person who has no real need, is not a rational answer to a situation or problem that he or she is facing.

4. our culture teaches young men that carrying a firearm is cool.

5. most of the people that I know of who have firearms, seem to chose them for their "coolness" than for their ability to solve a problem

6. most of the media that focus on firearms seem to focus on the "coolness" issues. and I know that there will be arguments about this, but really, other wise there would be a single issue coming out every year with changes to models, and a simple listing of specs and testing results for different weapons.

7. so, it seems to me that if you don't need to carry a weapon, and yet you do, and you are in the sphere of influnce of media telling you how cool it is, then you are doing it to be cool. and maybe you aren't thinking about john wayne, but I do't know who the correct pop image should be.

again, and I have written this any number of times - if you said to me "Globe, I did some research, and I got my self a (for instance) pair of mossberg shotguns and a pair of safes and I am keeping one by my bed and one in the kitchen and every month I have an evacuation drill with my family and I have put in 6 steel panels under the dry wall so that I can control the fire in the event of need and I took a week long shot gun course and now I go to the range every 3 months to keep up my skills" then I will have huge respect for what you have done. if you say "well, I got this really cool luger for my bedroom, and a really hot KA-47 for the bathroom, and a half dozen various other handguns and I ahve spread them out around my house" then I am not going to let my son come over to your house to play. and of course, there are variations in the middle.


----------



## Clovis

> quote:_Originally posted by Sophistication_
> 
> If you want to make a BIG statement you could always carry one of these, GQ's guide to a modern firearm, I think this is a Prada or Gucci:
> 
> Constantly Improving my Sartorial Style


It does have that _Fashion Forward_ Look about it

Clovis is what Clovis does.


----------



## Clovis

> quote:_Originally posted by Murrah_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:An 87-year-old East St. Louis woman fatally shot a man early this morning as he was trying to break into her house.
> 
> 
> 
> She MUST have once been in the airborne.
Click to expand...

I have worked in and around East St. Louis and the number of 87 year old women with guns is notable I would suspect

Clovis is what Clovis does.


----------



## pinchi22

> quote:the idea of a man who had the right to bear arms has always been a component of the concept of a "gentleman."


Indeed. Why, Sir, you have insulted my honor and I shall henceforth challenge you to a duel at 10 paces immediately. Err, as any gentleman would do!


----------



## Fritz

> _Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> You have got to be kidding. Nobody in his sane mind would duel with a foil. Foil has always been a training weapon, although it can be deadly. You would be much better with an Ã©pÃ©e.
> [\quote]
> 
> Etienne,
> correct on both accounts: I was kidding, and a foil is probably not the most effective weapon. I just somehow think of it as more elegant and gentlemanly than the epee.
> 
> Until the age of 18 I did the Modern Pentathlon, which at the time included epee fencing and shooting a small-calibre sports pistol on moving targets in a firing range. I think by now they changed it to airgun, but I am not sure. During my time as an exchange student I fenced with a foil. Thatâ€™s about the extent of my experience with weapons: sports equipment, nothing I need in my daily life.
> 
> I know Iâ€™m not going to change anyoneâ€™s opinion here, but I still gotta say this: the posts about Hurricanes and 9/11 are scary. What I am picturing here is huge numbers of people, who are scared, on the move, stressed out, feeling threatened, being worried about their homes and families and who probably didnâ€™t get enough sleep for a while. And they all carry gunsâ€¦. Sorry, I donâ€™t think this is a good idea. No offense to anyone, thatâ€™s your constitutional right, thatâ€™s how you grew up. Personally I wouldnâ€™t be comfortable with that.


----------



## tew

> quote:_Originally posted by pinchi22_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:the idea of a man who had the right to bear arms has always been a component of the concept of a "gentleman."
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Why, Sir, you have insulted my honor and I shall henceforth challenge you to a duel at 10 paces immediately. Err, as any gentleman would do!
Click to expand...

Pinchi, you're getting the steps out of order! According to the code of duello:



> quote:
> Rule 16. The challenged has the right to choose his own weapon, unless the challenger gives his honor he is no swordsman; after which, however, he can decline any second species of weapon proposed by the challenged.
> 
> Rule 17. The challenged chooses his ground; the challenger chooses his distance; the seconds fix the time and terms of firing.


----------



## Étienne

> quote:_Originally posted by Fritz_
> I just somehow think of it as more elegant and gentlemanly than the epee.


*choke* I could challenge you in duel for that  Okay, I admit I have the bias of the recent convert, I was a foilist for 5 years before turning to Ã©pÃ©e.

By the way, for what it is worth, I agree with your thoughts on the subject of firearms.


----------



## Tomasso

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> I am talking about the ability to use a firearm to control a conflict, and influence it in your favor, as well as to guarantee that only those people who are supposed to get hurt will get hurt.


Guarantee? Nobody possesses the requisite skills to make guarantees, once weapons are drawn by opposing forces there are no guarantees.


----------



## montecristo

"Hand guns are made for killing, ain't no good for nothing else."

A gentleman hunts foxes, not men.


----------



## RJman

> quote:_Originally posted by montecristo_
> A gentleman hunts foxes, not men.


But men are the most dangerous game...

*************
RJman. Accept no imitations.


----------



## Goblin

Skynyrd quoted on AAAC? That popping sound must be the breaking of another seal.

I was distressed to see my Lynyrd Skynyrd shirt being worn on "My Name Is Earl." Probably a bad sign for me, style-wise.


----------



## Clovis

> quote:_Originally posted by montecristo_
> 
> "Hand guns are made for killing, ain't no good for nothing else."
> 
> A gentleman hunts foxes, not men.


Where I grew up, always one of the huntsmen will have a revolver for discretely dispatching the occasional rabid fox or other injured animal while the hounds and riders have gone up ahead. I think most of these men would consider themselves to be gentlemen.

Clovis is what Clovis does.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Tomasso_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> I am talking about the ability to use a firearm to control a conflict, and influence it in your favor, as well as to guarantee that only those people who are supposed to get hurt will get hurt.
> 
> 
> 
> Guarantee? Nobody possesses the requisite skills to make guarantees, once weapons are drawn by opposing forces there are no guarantees.
Click to expand...

granted, but let me give you an example of the type of control I am referning to. I calculate that I have fired somewhere between a quarter of a million and half a million 5.56 and 7.62 rounds and a few tens of thousands of rounds of other stuff, in training. most of that, was with several other people running around me, often as many as 1000 people within range of my fire. often, I was firing in a smoke filled building, with 3 or 4 other guys in the room, all firing like me, at targets that were often on 3 walls. at least half of this was at night. in addition, for years I, and all the people around me, carried assult rifles and typically 70-140 rounds of ammo with us at all times, 24/7. aside from training, I spent a good amount of time imvolved in actions, where firepwer was used.

at one point, in 1987, during a large excersize, I fired two rounds when I meant to fire one at a specific target. the round hit the target, no body was in the way. nobody was hurt, the incedent was effectivly invisible to anybody but myself. I still feel as guilty about that as I do about pretty much anything I have done in my life. For years, if I thought about it, I would get physically ill.

that may seem like overkill, or being overly fussy about it, but let me rephrase that - in all of that shooting I was involved in, and with all of the other people shooting around me, nobody who wasn't supposed to get shot was shot. not a one. that is the level of saftly that I think is reasonable when using firearms.


----------



## pinchi22

> quote:I have to say that after catrina I have been tempted to aquire a firearm for the home, as well. and, as somebody who didn't grow up here, I may be putting too much faith in the ability of the police to respond.


Fair point. But what about the tens of thousands of people for whom the police couldnÂ´t respond precisely because they were being fired at by citizens dutifully bearing automatic machine guns they could have easily bought in accordance with their cherished consitutional right?


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by pinchi22_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:I have to say that after catrina I have been tempted to aquire a firearm for the home, as well. and, as somebody who didn't grow up here, I may be putting too much faith in the ability of the police to respond.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair point. But what about the tens of thousands of people for whom the police couldnÂ´t respond precisely because they were being fired at by citizens dutifully bearing automatic machine guns they could have easily bought in accordance with their cherished consitutional right?
Click to expand...

fair point. and this is exactly why I am still debating the issue with myself.


----------



## dah328

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> that may seem like overkill, or being overly fussy about it, but let me rephrase that - in all of that shooting I was involved in, and with all of the other people shooting around me, nobody who wasn't supposed to get shot was shot. not a one. that is the level of saftly that I think is reasonable when using firearms.


That is both an admirable goal and achievement. If such a level of safety is your prime concern, you must have an equally stringent view on the requirements for the operation of motor vehicles which kill some 40-50k people every year.

dan


----------



## Dmax

Mr. Globetroter,

I fail to see how you can define the arguments as "well developed" when it mostly revolves around You judging what other people NEED.

You state that: "1. most people have no real need to carry a firearm."

Let most people be the judge of that. They have a right to carry a firearm. They do not Need You to make their decisions for them.
I agree that a decision to own and carry a firearm should not be made lightly but that is a decision each of us has to make on his own.

Dimitry


----------



## dah328

> quote:_Originally posted by pinchi22_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:I have to say that after catrina I have been tempted to aquire a firearm for the home, as well. and, as somebody who didn't grow up here, I may be putting too much faith in the ability of the police to respond.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair point. But what about the tens of thousands of people for whom the police couldnÂ´t respond precisely because they were being fired at by citizens dutifully bearing automatic machine guns they could have easily bought in accordance with their cherished consitutional right?
Click to expand...

Fair point? I may grant you that if you can identify one crime committed in the US with a legally obtained "automatic machine gun." Just one crime. In all the years that they've been available. Shouldn't be hard, right?


----------



## Relayer

Dr,

I am fairly surprised by those who choose to get on this thread to insult you for your opinion that a gentleman should own a handgun. Ownership and proficiency with firearms, including handguns, has long been a gentlemanly pursuit. The ability to defend one's property and family was expected. Things these days have changed in many regards, but certainly one should still be able (and free) to do this.

I am somewhat of an enthusiast. I was raised with guns, served in the military, and own two rifles, a shotgun, and three handguns. Surprisingly enough, I have yet to kill or wound anyone. Nor have any of my similar friends or relatives. I know it may be hard to imagine, but it's true.

Now I know many of our friends from other countries do not have the same rights that we Americans enjoy. Some may wish that my rights as an American could be taken from me because they don't like that right. Also, many Americans wish to take that right from me, or to try to pressure me from excercising that right. I know that. I urge you to exercise that right, if you so desire. One should preferabl have training, be safe, be smart. I also bet you won't commit any crimes because you have chosen to excercise you rights.

Now, I own a Colt 1911, and love it. I used to load my own cartridges when I had more time. It is a fine gun. For me, the 1911 is just to heavy and large to wear comfortably, even with a suit. Have you ever taken a close look at the CZ line (I own the P-01, 9mm)? Great gun, in m opinion. Walther PPK is fashionalbe, but way overpriced, and not that comfortable to shoot. It is sleek and concealable.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by dah328_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> that may seem like overkill, or being overly fussy about it, but let me rephrase that - in all of that shooting I was involved in, and with all of the other people shooting around me, nobody who wasn't supposed to get shot was shot. not a one. that is the level of saftly that I think is reasonable when using firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> That is both an admirable goal and achievement. If such a level of safety is your prime concern, you must have an equally stringent view on the requirements for the operation of motor vehicles which kill some 40-50k people every year.
> 
> dan
Click to expand...

all part of the same argument, dan. motor vehicles give us a huge amount of benifit. I honestly don't see the benifit that firearms do. and, again, I have said repeatedly that if you have a need for a firearm, if you are in a combat arm of the military, or a leo, or in armed security, or you are hunting for meat, then by all means, make the cost/benifit annalysis. if the advantage of having a gun is because it looks cool, and the disadvantage is that it kills people by mistake, then the cost/benifit is pretty clear, no?


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working

> quote:_Originally posted by pinchi22_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:I have to say that after catrina I have been tempted to aquire a firearm for the home, as well. and, as somebody who didn't grow up here, I may be putting too much faith in the ability of the police to respond.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair point. But what about the tens of thousands of people for whom the police couldnÂ´t respond precisely because they were being fired at by citizens dutifully bearing automatic machine guns they could have easily bought in accordance with their cherished consitutional right?
Click to expand...

Obviously you have not spent enough time in New Orleans.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Dmax_
> 
> Mr. Globetroter,
> 
> I fail to see how you can define the arguments as "well developed" when it mostly revolves around You judging what other people NEED.
> 
> You state that: "1. most people have no real need to carry a firearm."
> 
> Let most people be the judge of that. They have a right to carry a firearm. They do not Need You to make their decisions for them.
> I agree that a decision to own and carry a firearm should not be made lightly but that is a decision each of us has to make on his own.
> 
> Dimitry


that gets us back to john wayne - if you have a need to carry a firearm because you think if makes you feel more like a man, that is not a need I am intersted in. if, like me, you live in a county where there have been two murders in the past 3 years, and neither would have been influenced by the victem owning a fireram, they you have no objective need for a firearm.

statistically speaking, very very few civillians in the US need a firearm. they like having them. and, by all means, if you need it, get it.


----------



## Goblin

Very, very few American citizens "need" the protections of any given provision of the Bill of Rights in the ordinary course of their everyday lives. Nonetheless, we like having them.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Goblin_
> 
> Very, very few American citizens "need" the protections of any given provision of the Bill of Rights in the ordinary course of their everyday lives. Nonetheless, we like having them.


again, I am not saying take away the right. we have plenty of rights that we don't use.


----------



## Allthingstrad

> quote:_Originally posted by Murrah_
> 
> I don't enjoy the discussion of all things trad.


Ahem.

"Since it's a traditional, preppy look it's best if balanced by a relatively small four-in-hand knot." He sips his martini, recrossing his legs. "Next question?"


----------



## DressPRMex

> quote:_Originally posted by DougNZ_
> 
> I'm not certain that weapons are appropriate for discussion on this forum.


Indeed. Please take the discussion about guns somewhere else as it is rather uncomfortable for many of us.


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working

It is interesting to hear, directly, the European view. For whatever reason, firearms are truly threatening to many. Watching the Katrina events unfold so close to home, those here in the US should treasure the 2nd Amend rights. The fundamental difference lies not so much in the gun debate, but the very nature of personal freedom. Most European countries have now adopted regulations and policies practically banning self-defense by whatever means; the individual must rely solely upon the state to provide security even when harm is at hand. The British are even pondering banning certain kitchen knives it appears. Guns aside, I prefer to live in a society where the individual is free to live, and free to act against those intent upon taking it.

As one who resides in a red state known as the "Sportsman's Paradise", I have often found those attracted to guns for the wrong reason did not grow up exposed with the proper respect for them. Globetrotter made one comment of which I took note. I, too, have found those serving in elite professional units where the taking of life was required - and experienced - particularly close at hand, often shy away from large open firearm collections. This observation does not necessarily hold for those veterans serving with larger, more public units, experiencing large-scale campaigns. Perhaps it is related to the nature of service and the experiences one must endure.


----------



## pendennis

> quote:_Originally posted by Sophistication_
> 
> I guess if you want to carry a gun, why not get one of these, you can disable your adversary without KILLING HIM. In addition, there are many great courses in self defense available.
> 
> The modern gentleman's gun, results without death:
> 
> Constantly Improving my Sartorial Style


This is the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gun fight. It will get you killed as fast as the speeding bullet.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## Étienne

> quote:_Originally posted by Relayer_
> Now I know many of our friends from other countries do not have the same rights that we Americans enjoy. Some may wish that my rights as an American could be taken from me because they don't like that right.


I rather think most people abroad do not care. I have my opinion on the subject but I would never, of course, presume to "wish your right [be] taken away from you". I am just happy to live in a country where firearms are not so prevalent.



> quote:_Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working_
> For whatever reason, firearms are truly threatening to many.


Maybe because they are designed specifically to kill? You take the example of Katrina and the subsequent unrest. Let me take the example of the riots in France at the end of last year. About 15 days of civil unrest in various suburbs. Although it was not the mayhem described in the international media, it was still a pretty serious event. A lot of physical damage. And not one violent death. Not one.

There were the two young people who died accidentally before the riots in an electrical building (the event that triggered them), and an elderly man who died, with at best a dubious connection to the unrest.

I cannot help thinking that if this had happened in a country where firearms are more readily available, shots would have been shot and people would have died.


----------



## globetrotter

etiene,

I would tend to agree.

there is a major issue here which we skirt around - firearms, and espectially handguns, are designed to make it easier to kill people. so easy that we may not have to think about it too much.

when a society has almost no firearms in private hands, like france, a major riot get go over with virtually no death. in a place like the states, an argument in school can end in a dozen killed. 

the knee jerk reaction is that I am suggesting that citizens dont protect themselves. I am not suggesting that - I am suggesting that for their needs, non lethal weapons will protect them as well, if not better, and that the potential down side is much less with non lethal weapons - nobody killed by accident.


----------



## pendennis

Dr. Ryan has succinctly identified my feelings on the subject. Globetrotter has an opinion which does not bear out the facts. Police officers and military personnel, in most instances, are not trained to the top of firearms proficiency. Only the most elite have superior firearms training and skills. Also, shooting "Expert" in the military has no real bearing on how one will handle themselves during a real shooting crisis. Military history annals are replete with stories of individuals who did not shoot well during combat. During the era of muzzleloading military weapons, there are any number of instances where weapons were double-, and triple-loaded, by soldiers forgetting their shooting drills. No plan survives intact, contact with the enemy.

There are also many documented cases of police officers missing their target within five feet, when subjected to a stressful combat situation.

Each person relies on his/her training with weapons, and reacts accordingly.

When I trained for my CCW permit, one of the primary instructors was an attorney. His presentation put everything into perspective. When one decides to use deadly force, the cost besides the potential loss of human life, will be in the neighborhood of $30,000; and that's if you win in court, and the bad guy loses the civil suit. That is the cost of the lawyer, independent of any liability costs to the gun owner/user.


That stated -

My preference is the Kimber Arms .45 cal. automatic, with an 8-round Wilson magazine, carrying the firearm cocked and locked, as Doctor Browning intended. Carry is in a Bianchi holster, inside the trousers belt. With looser-fitting clothing, the silhouette is not noticeable. It is also easily carried in my Cooper M65 leather field jacket, and again, is very cleanly hidden. 

My second preference is a Glock Model 27 (.40 cal S&W), in the same type of Bianchi holster.

My third preference is for the long-discontinued Charter Arms .22 WMR derringer, carried in a "wallet holster" carried in a front pocket. The poor miscreant never believes a potential victim carries a gun in the front pocket. Two rounds of .22 WMR, while not as potent as some larger calibers, will still put a perpetrator down if you are inside five feet.

The foremost pistolero of the 20th century, Mr. Jeff Cooper, was asked why he carried the Model 1911 .45 cal full frame - His reply was that the Colt 1911 didn't come in a bigger caliber. This pistol has not survived for nearly 100 years for nothing.

The problem with carrying is not the barrel length, but the thickness of the firearm.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working

> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working_
> For whatever reason, firearms are truly threatening to many.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because they are designed specifically to kill? You take the example of Katrina and the subsequent unrest. Let me take the example of the riots in France at the end of last year. About 15 days of civil unrest in various suburbs. Although it was not the mayhem described in the international media, it was still a pretty serious event. A lot of physical damage. And not one violent death. Not one.
> 
> There were the two young people who died accidentally before the riots in an electrical building (the event that triggered them), and an elderly man who died, with at best a dubious connection to the unrest.
> 
> I cannot help thinking that if this had happened in a country where firearms are more readily available, shots would have been shot and people would have died.
Click to expand...

Regarding firearms, those enjoying the various sports and hobbies associated would likely take exception to the blanket notion guns are designed to kill. True, many firearms are weapons, made for defense purposes for combat against man. Unfortunately many more firearms are made to appeal to those with a desire for something which looks like a weapon. But most who collect guns seek out models that will hurt if not kill, but were never intended for such purpose. This might come off as trite, but it truly explains why so many in this country think nothing of guns within their presence. The firearm is not viewed primarily as a device by which to kill man.

As to the riots in France, I most certainly agree that similar riots in the US would have produced multiple shootings. Perhaps you feel safer unarmed even if those were to occur near your home. I would not.


----------



## rogue

I say carry what you like.

For those that prefer to save lives, you would be better served to focus on swimming pools or roadway infrastructure where many more lives are lost annually (on boths sides of the pond) in simple cost/benefit analysis.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> trained to the top of firearms proficiency. Only the most elite have superior firearms training and skills. Also, shooting "Expert" in the military has no real bearing on how one will handle themselves during a real shooting crisis. Military history annals are replete with stories of individuals who did not shoot well during combat. During the era of muzzleloading military weapons, there are any number of instances where weapons were double-, and triple-loaded, by soldiers forgetting their shooting drills. No plan survives intact, contact with the enemy.


so what you are saying is that because ever very well trained men sometimes don't perform well, training isn't that relevant?

just an aside - the training that muzzle loading armies got wasn't terribly good. one of the reasons that modern armies train a lot better. and I would also agree with you, not everybody uses a firear well, even when they are in uniform - that is why so few people in the military are ever actually expected to shoot somebody, the vast majority of the military organization basically move things around and work on paperwork and logistics, or manage part of a weapons system. not that many actually are in the shooting people business.

what I would like to know is this - here you are, armed with 2 or 3 firearms. what possible threat do you forsee that would require this?

let me ask you another question - lets say, for arguments sake, that that .45 is the best weapon for you. so, why do you have two others? do you do a morning threat assement and say "today I will be more at risk of being attacked by a person who weighs less than 100 pounds, so I will take my little gun"? how does that work, I am genuinly curious.


----------



## Briguy

> quote:_Originally posted by pinchi22_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:I have to say that after catrina I have been tempted to aquire a firearm for the home, as well. and, as somebody who didn't grow up here, I may be putting too much faith in the ability of the police to respond.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair point. But what about the tens of thousands of people for whom the police couldnÂ´t respond precisely because they were being fired at by citizens dutifully bearing automatic machine guns they could have easily bought in accordance with their cherished consitutional right?
Click to expand...

Machine guns are not available to the general population, being subject to incredibly strict controls since the National Firearms Act of 1934. The few legally transferable machine guns cost US$4,000 and up, and require extensive background checks and local and federal law enforcement sign-off on the transfer. Since 1934, only one legally possessed machine gun has been used in a crime, and that weapon was issued to the police officer who used it illegally.


----------



## Étienne

> quote:_Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working_
> As to the riots in France, I most certainly agree that similar riots in the US would have produced multiple shootings. Perhaps you feel safer unarmed even if those were to occur near your home. I would not.


If I have to choose between a situation where I have a firearm but so do the dozens of youths burning cars outside vs a situation where nobody has firearms, I do indeed feel safer in the second case.

I did not say "unarmed", by the way. I work out, am a fencer and have a minimal knowledge of combat sports. I have other means to defend myself that do not require any firearm. A good sturdy stick comes to mind.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [iThis might come off as trite, but it truly explains why so many in this country think nothing of guns within their presence. The firearm is not viewed primarily as a device by which to kill man.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, and I think this is one of the reasons that so many people are killed with firearms in the US every year.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working_
> 
> I did not say "unarmed", by the way. I work out, am a fencer and have a minimal knowledge of combat sports. I have other means to defend myself that do not require any firearm. A good sturdy stick comes to mind.
> 
> 
> 
> see, this is a great deal more gentlemanly than a big old .45
Click to expand...


----------



## pendennis

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> so what you are saying is that because ever very well trained men sometimes don't perform well, training isn't that relevant?
> 
> just an aside - the training that muzzle loading armies got wasn't terribly good. one of the reasons that modern armies train a lot better. and I would also agree with you, not everybody uses a firear well, even when they are in uniform - that is why so few people in the military are ever actually expected to shoot somebody, the vast majority of the military organization basically move things around and work on paperwork and logistics, or manage part of a weapons system. not that many actually are in the shooting people business.
> 
> what I would like to know is this - here you are, armed with 2 or 3 firearms. what possible threat do you forsee that would require this?
> 
> let me ask you another question - lets say, for arguments sake, that that .45 is the best weapon for you. so, why do you have two others? do you do a morning threat assement and say "today I will be more at risk of being attacked by a person who weighs less than 100 pounds, so I will take my little gun"? how does that work, I am genuinly curious.


First - Training is extremely relevant, and has no substitute. Trigger time to improve timing and aim are indispensable. I practice every week, and at distances in which threats will likely emerge - i.e. within 7 yards. I also practice off-hand and weak-hand, just as I was taught to do at Jeff Cooper's school. As my drill instructor said - "Train like you fight".

Second - I love my Kimber .45. That doesn't mean I don't carry one of the others when the occasion calls for something different. Not to be trite, but there are "horses for courses". When hiking in the woods, I carry a Ruger Single Action 4.75" barrel revolver in .45 cal Colt. It's carried in an El Paso Saddlery holster in the open. The rounds are hand-loaded to pressures/velocities greater than a .44 magnum. In anticipation of hiking, I always run 100 rounds through the revolver to maintain my skills.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## ibucephalus

> quote:But men are the most dangerous game...


"in the first night alone, eight tourists died of exposure"


----------



## Innovan

Is there anything more trad than a military uniform?
No.

For most men, the first trad clothing they wear (and for many, the only in their lifetime) is a military uniform. Brooks has been making military uniforms for US servicemen since the 1860s. Grant wore his Brooks-made suit to the surrender at Appomattox.

Are weapons traditionally worn with dress uniforms?
Certainly while in honor guard. And also at affairs of state. But at a formal ball or an evening cocktail party? No. I know men who have worn ceremonial swords to formal events. They tend to sweep over pottery, and they completely interfere with waltzing.

Back to the Romans, history has taught us that events that bring together both weapons and alcohol tend to end pretty badly.

Outside military and police service, do Americans typically carry weapons?
Not without a license. Don't believe what you see in the movies, gullable foreigners.


----------



## Orb

Now that Red States have changed their laws to allow anyone to carry concealed pistols I wonder how many people there carry. When I visit a corporate headquarters in Dallas next week should I assume my colleagues have cell phones, iPods, and Glocks under their jackets?


----------



## Relayer

What is this Red State change you speak of? I must have missed it.


----------



## Briguy

The issue, unfortunately, is not whether firearms exist in a given society, but what any particular society's tolerance is toward violent behavior. 

Nothing is 100%, but for all practical purposes, no one wakes up one day and decides to go shoot up a bank. Certain cultures, or subcultures, create ultra-violent predator-criminals. Almost to a man, every person jailed for violent crime shares a common history of having gone through a process one criminologist has called "violentization", whereby the person starts out as the victim of violence, often family violence, and ends their journey embracing violence as a public norm. These people will beat, torture, and kill for any reason or no reason. They are thrilled at the fear they see in others. They associate with other ultra-violent people. Violence not only becomes the way in which they assure themselves of never being a victim again, but of obtaining the status and respect they could not achieve any other way. They indeed live by the sword, and mostly die by the sword, cutting a path of violence and destruction through whatever society they inhabit. 

The tool they use to inflict their violence is moot, as they will use whatever is at hand. Early episodes of public violence rarely involve firearms. Whether hands and feet, bottles, trash cans, whatever they have in their hands they will use, and they won't stop until their victim is as dead or battered as they choose. These people may act enraged, or out of control, but it is totally an act. These people, amazingly, typically report that they experience the greatest peace they know when they are killing or beating someone. Remove the guns and you change only how the victims are killed.


----------



## Orb

> quote:_Originally posted by Relayer_
> 
> What is this Red State change you speak of? I must have missed it.


I just Googled "concealed carry states" and found packing.org and they list 35 states that give residents conceled carry permits.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> so what you are saying is that because ever very well trained men sometimes don't perform well, training isn't that relevant?
> 
> just an aside - the training that muzzle loading armies got wasn't terribly good. one of the reasons that modern armies train a lot better. and I would also agree with you, not everybody uses a firear well, even when they are in uniform - that is why so few people in the military are ever actually expected to shoot somebody, the vast majority of the military organization basically move things around and work on paperwork and logistics, or manage part of a weapons system. not that many actually are in the shooting people business.
> 
> what I would like to know is this - here you are, armed with 2 or 3 firearms. what possible threat do you forsee that would require this?
> 
> let me ask you another question - lets say, for arguments sake, that that .45 is the best weapon for you. so, why do you have two others? do you do a morning threat assement and say "today I will be more at risk of being attacked by a person who weighs less than 100 pounds, so I will take my little gun"? how does that work, I am genuinly curious.
> 
> 
> 
> First - Training is extremely relevant, and has no substitute. Trigger time to improve timing and aim are indispensable. I practice every week, and at distances in which threats will likely emerge - i.e. within 7 yards. I also practice off-hand and weak-hand, just as I was taught to do at Jeff Cooper's school. As my drill instructor said - "Train like you fight".
> 
> Second - I love my Kimber .45. That doesn't mean I don't carry one of the others when the occasion calls for something different. Not to be trite, but there are "horses for courses". When hiking in the woods, I carry a Ruger Single Action 4.75" barrel revolver in .45 cal Colt. It's carried in an El Paso Saddlery holster in the open. The rounds are hand-loaded to pressures/velocities greater than a .44 magnum. In anticipation of hiking, I always run 100 rounds through the revolver to maintain my skills.
> 
> Dennis
> If you wish to control the future, then create it.
> Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae
Click to expand...

ok, so you have a few thousand dollars worth of hardware, and you must spend a few thousand dollars a year in ammo, and you put in an hour or so a week in training. not to sound patranizing, but good for you, at least you are taking it seriously.

but, please do indulge me a few questions

1. what possible threat do you anticipate to your person that warrents this?

2. what possible need for such a high powered revolver?


----------



## Relayer

That's not a 'Red State' change to allow 'anyone' to carry guns. 

My guess is that less than 10% will be packing in Dallas. But be polite, just in case.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> The issue, unfortunately, is not whether firearms exist in a given society, but what any particular society's tolerance is toward violent behavior.
> 
> Nothing is 100%, but for all practical purposes, no one wakes up one day and decides to go shoot up a bank. Certain cultures, or subcultures, create ultra-violent predator-criminals. Almost to a man, every person jailed for violent crime shares a common history of having gone through a process one criminologist has called "violentization", whereby the person starts out as the victim of violence, often family violence, and ends their journey embracing violence as a public norm. These people will beat, torture, and kill for any reason or no reason. They are thrilled at the fear they see in others. They associate with other ultra-violent people. Violence not only becomes the way in which they assure themselves of never being a victim again, but of obtaining the status and respect they could not achieve any other way. They indeed live by the sword, and mostly die by the sword, cutting a path of violence and destruction through whatever society they inhabit.
> 
> The tool they use to inflict their violence is moot, as they will use whatever is at hand. Early episodes of public violence rarely involve firearms. Whether hands and feet, bottles, trash cans, whatever they have in their hands they will use, and they won't stop until their victim is as dead or battered as they choose. These people may act enraged, or out of control, but it is totally an act. These people, amazingly, typically report that they experience the greatest peace they know when they are killing or beating someone. Remove the guns and you change only how the victims are killed.


movies aside, it really isn't that easy to kill somebody on purpose without a purpose designed weapon. it is unbelievably easy to kill somebody with a large caliber handgun. everybody has a fleeting desire to kill somebody at one point or another. put a large caliber handgun in his hand when he has the desire, and you may have a problem on your hands.

example - do you really think all of those scrawny looser kids would have been able to kill so many schoolmates if they didn't have access to firearms?


----------



## Innovan

&gt;do you really think all of those scrawny looser kids would have been
&gt;able to kill so many schoolmates if they didn't have access to firearms?

They don't have access to firearms. They're completely illegal to buy for legal minors, and legal minors may only obtain a permit to use with supervision, while hunting, while under the supervision of a licensed adult, only once they've graduated from a lengthy series of required safety courses.

Funny thing though. The same kids that smuggle in all sorts of illegal drugs for their own recreational use despite a huge police force and many laws against it... the same kids that easily obtain illegally copied movies, music and pirated software despite many laws and a large customs force working to prevent it ...also manage to smuggle in illegal weapons and use them anyways, regardless of our laws and police enforcement.

We also have laws and enforcement that prevents convicted criminals from purchasing and ever owning firearms again in their life. Yet convicted criminals, after released from jail, and with no legal avenue for them to obtain a weapon... manage to obtain them illegally anyway, despite a huge bureaucracy's best efforts.

It's almost like lawbreakers... openly ignore and break the laws or something.


----------



## Relayer

"...everybody has a fleeting desire to kill somebody at one point or another. put a large caliber handgun in his hand..."

Please! Speak for yourself.

I have no desire to kill anyone. My, Lord.


----------



## Rich

> quote:_Originally posted by Relayer_
> 
> "...everybody has a fleeting desire to kill somebody at one point or another. put a large caliber handgun in his hand..."
> 
> Please! Speak for yourself.
> 
> I have no desire to kill anyone. My, Lord.


Not yet maybe...


----------



## Bonhamesque

> quote:_Originally posted by DD_
> 
> I live in the UK and used to carry a Glock 17 almost all the time.
> 
> Some people in my own country are very naive and ignorant about the life some of us have to lead. There are tens of thousands of people carrying pistols daily there, and I am not talking about criminals.


What?????!!!!!

Where do you live?
I've lived in London all my life and I've never ever seen a pistol anywhere or heard one being fired.
Not saying it doesn't happen but who are these people who go around 'carrying pistols daily'??


----------



## Rich

> quote:_Originally posted by DD_
> as a UK resident I was forced to carry a firearm 24/7 for my protection, as were both my brothers, my father and many friends.
> 
> Before I am accused of any crimes, these were government supplied and approved.
> 
> Those members who have never in their lives felt the need for such an item, are fortunate indeed, but they should realise that not all of us live in such circumstances.


Surely this is highly unusual? How many other UK residents are _forced_ to carry a government-supplied firearm 24/7?


----------



## gordgekko

> quote:_Originally posted by dah328_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> that may seem like overkill, or being overly fussy about it, but let me rephrase that - in all of that shooting I was involved in, and with all of the other people shooting around me, nobody who wasn't supposed to get shot was shot. not a one. that is the level of saftly that I think is reasonable when using firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> That is both an admirable goal and achievement. If such a level of safety is your prime concern, you must have an equally stringent view on the requirements for the operation of motor vehicles which kill some 40-50k people every year.
> 
> dan
Click to expand...

Well said. I too was recon (Canadian military, so obviously I didn't see action  ) and as a northern Canadian I grew up with firearms and hunting so I'm not exactly unfamiliar with firearms myself and I'll say this: Most people's driving worries me a lot more than I ever was when someone held or fired a weapon next to me.

I'll agree with globetrotter on one point: You want to own a firearm? Fine, you get thorough training first.



> quote:Indeed. Please take the discussion about guns somewhere else as it is rather uncomfortable for many of us.


You clicked on the thread mate, just as easy for you to click back out of it.

---------------------
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Innovan_
> 
> >do you really think all of those scrawny looser kids would have been
> >able to kill so many schoolmates if they didn't have access to firearms?
> 
> They don't have access to firearms. They're completely illegal to buy for legal minors, and legal minors may only obtain a permit to use with supervision, while hunting, while under the supervision of a licensed adult, only once they've graduated from a lengthy series of required safety courses.
> 
> Funny thing though. The same kids that smuggle in all sorts of illegal drugs for their own recreational use despite a huge police force and many laws against it... the same kids that easily obtain illegally copied movies, music and pirated software despite many laws and a large customs force working to prevent it ...also manage to smuggle in illegal weapons and use them anyways, regardless of our laws and police enforcement.
> 
> We also have laws and enforcement that prevents convicted criminals from purchasing and ever owning firearms again in their life. Yet convicted criminals, after released from jail, and with no legal avenue for them to obtain a weapon... manage to obtain them illegally anyway, despite a huge bureaucracy's best efforts.
> 
> It's almost like lawbreakers... openly ignore and break the laws or something.


of course they had access to firearms, this is exactly what I am talking about (in my mind, I am raising my voice and the pitch of my voice, in an exasberated manner) - these school shootings over the past 10 years all used weapons that were purchased legally by the shooters families, or weapons that were purchased legally by somebody who then sold them to these kids illigally. if people in america were more reposnible about handling their firearms, these shootings wouldn't have happened.

I would be very happy with a law (which you have in Israel by the way) which puts a level of responsiblity for the legal purchaser of a firearm if his weapon is stolen and used for a crime.


----------



## pendennis

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Briguy_
> movies aside, it really isn't that easy to kill somebody on purpose without a purpose designed weapon. it is unbelievably easy to kill somebody with a large caliber handgun. everybody has a fleeting desire to kill somebody at one point or another. put a large caliber handgun in his hand when he has the desire, and you may have a problem on your hands.
> 
> example - do you really think all of those scrawny looser kids would have been able to kill so many schoolmates if they didn't have access to firearms?
> 
> 
> 
> It is extremely unlikely that you will kill anyone without specifically aiming at another individual. You are more likely to die in a car wreck, drowning, etc. that by firearms death.
> 
> Further, even putting a "large caliber" or small caliber firearm in one's hands, does not mean that individual will shoot someone, even "when he has a fleeting desire". Most individuals are taught respect for life from an early age. Only true sociopaths will kill when given the opportunity. Even enraged, individuals will not kill unless mortally threatened.
> 
> Those two morons at Columbine, were un-supervised, and used a third party adult to illegally procure their firearms. Where were the parents of these two sociopaths when all this firearms acquisition was happening? The parents should be civilly liable for the damages their children caused, since they failed miserably in their parental duties.
> 
> Dennis
> If you wish to control the future, then create it.
> Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae
Click to expand...


----------



## Innovan

&gt;these school shootings

So now you agree that legal adults should have unrestricted acess to weapons for their own defense. You also accept that it is illegal for legal minors to own and use firearms. The only issue left is what about criminal legal minors who obtain firearms illegally and plot to use them against a large, unarmed, captive group of people.

Here's one interesting position on this.

"What about the availability of guns to minors? Every school shooting is followed by interviews on network morning infotainment programs in which interviewees blame the availability of guns. This claim proves false under mere examination of memory by any American over 50: Not too many decades ago, guns were available at nearly every local department store and auto service station; children carried guns to school on the days they practiced with the marksmanship club (or whatever the school called it); and â€“ horror of horrors â€“ the welfare state reared its head when impoverished children in some states were given a rifle by the government! And no one ever heard of school shootings.

Guns are far less available to Americans today than in the 1960â€™s, and school shootings are now a problem. Part of the apparent self-contradiction of that statement lies in not examining the word "available." Guns are, in many places, less available only to law abiding people. Guns always have been freely available to criminals who are willing to use stolen cash to purchase a gun illegally. Large, well-funded street gangs arenâ€™t even going into alleys to buy Saturday-night specials any more, but are getting guns on the international arms market, including large numbers of fully-automatic weapons out of the reach of the rest of us. And large, well-funded street gangs thrive in cities with strong laws against law-abiding people having guns.

It is important to note that many school shootings are perpetrated by children who have stolen their parentsâ€™ legally owned guns. These are the cases that rightly give rise to agitation against schools and parents who refuse to teach moral right from wrong. And these are the cases that most directly would be prevented if the wannabe shooter didnâ€™t know which teachers were packing heat and which werenâ€™t. While we canâ€™t legislate what parents teach their children, and while it will be nearly impossible (but still should be attempted) to let teachers teach right from wrong, we definitely can legislate in favor of gun possession for law abiding people. Let ordinary citizens and a few schoolteachers follow their own consciences in arming to defend themselves, and watch the school shootings go away."


----------



## Briguy

[quote
[/quote]

movies aside, it really isn't that easy to kill somebody on purpose without a purpose designed weapon. it is unbelievably easy to kill somebody with a large caliber handgun. [/quote]

This statement is clear evidence to me that you are a moral man. Moral men cannot imagine themselves killing anyone. Forcing themselves to consider such an unpleasant event, the moral man can imagine using a remote-control weapon, such as a firearm, but cannot imagine kicking the life out of another human being. Unfortunately, the ultra-violent person is not so squeamish, in fact, finding pleasure in brutalizing other people.

My wife, an anesthetist, worked for 10 years at a level 1 urban trauma center, treating both victims and perps. According to her, most of the shooting victims themselves were, in fact, violent criminals who lost this particular encounter (academic researchers consistently reach similar conclusions). The most difficult patients to treat, according to my wife, were the victims of deliberate violence not involving firearms. Outnumbering the shooting victims by many multiples to one, the atrocities committed to these people equal those committed by the Nazis (such as, the prostitute whose pimp pounded a dozen nails into various parts of her body as punishment, and it gets worse from there).

The public school shootings are tragic, but thankfully rare. Japan, just last year I believe, experienced a stabbing rampage at a school, where several children were killed.

The tool is just a tool, in the end. Take one away and another is substituted. Truely, we need, as a society, to interrupt the cycle of violence and abuse that creates these monsters.


----------



## Kav

Why do I feel like Rhett Butler rising unseen from the couch after Scarlett's declaration of love to Ashley? I'm a liberal. I'm so left communist staff at the University called me 'that dangerous man.' Probably so left I'm rubbing elbows with the right on some issues and being accused of libertarianism. But I claim allegiance to that goofy group of Greens. You won't see me turning blue like a recently posted proponent of colloidal silver. I don't much like this red vs blue state business either. It sounds to much like Blue vs Grey during our most pivotal event in American history. I'm red,white and blue O.K.? I'm also in the minority of posters who've felt the shock of a bullet in my body and returned favour. You want to know an aspect of being a gnetleman? It's called being discrete. I don't talk about affairs with my ladies or if I'm packing. I get a big laugh out of these survivalist sites that worry about wiretapping and then openly boast about their pearl handled SKS, Adolf Shickelgruber commemmoratives with Damascene bayonets and extended, jamm guaranteed magazines. Holsters my MK4 6" RN Webley & Scott. " This is my prefered Weapon Mr Quiqley. Do join me for dinner."


----------



## NewYorkBuck

Hardly a discussion for a clothing board, but since we're here already...

One thing that I think many are missing when they talk about the Constitutional right to bear arms and the "need" to carry is born out in why that amendment was drafted in the first place. Contrary to popular belief, that amendment was not included so the citizenry could protect themselves against each other, nor for the citizenry to protect themselves against foreign invaders. It was included to protect the citizenry against the government itself. Since IMO governments are no less oppressive or irresponsible now than at the time this amendment was drafted, I believe its existence is just as important today as it ever was.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_
> _


_
It is extremely unlikely that you will kill anyone without specifically aiming at another individual. You are more likely to die in a car wreck, drowning, etc. that by firearms death.

Those two morons at Columbine, were un-supervised, and used a third party adult to illegally procure their firearms. Where were the parents of these two sociopaths when all this firearms acquisition was happening? The parents should be civilly liable for the damages their children caused, since they failed miserably in their parental duties.

[/quote]

extemly unlikely, but a great deal more likly than actually needing your firearm for defence. 2 weeks ago in nyc some idiot sailor on leave fired his hand gun into the air and killed a woman. it happens, it doen'st happen every day, but it is a great deal more likely than the possiblity of a situation arrising that you can influence with your handgun._


----------



## RJman

"This is really ****-ed up right here." -- South Park.

You think TEACHERS should be armed? So the solution is more guns. Do you count on teachers to keep the gun secured at all times? Do you think a teacher's not going to be overpowered and the gun taken away? Sure, you can train 'em, but as you lot said, there are plenty of peace officers who've been trained [sic] and can't handle guns well under pressure. If you're a teacher, you're going to have a paralyzing choice when threatened by a student (unarmed): either to gravely wound him/her or not to... Have a reality check.

*************
RJman. Accept no imitations.

Styleforum visitors, please be reassured: The RJ Cat (2'5", 10.1 lb) still  has a posse.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Innovan_
> 
> >these school shootings
> 
> So now you agree that legal adults should have unrestricted acess to weapons for their own defense. You also accept that it is illegal for legal minors to own and use firearms. The only issue left is what about criminal legal minors who obtain firearms illegally and plot to use them against a large, unarmed, captive group of people.
> 
> Here's one interesting position on this.
> 
> "What about the availability of guns to minors? Every school shooting is followed by interviews on network morning infotainment programs in which interviewees blame the availability of guns. This claim proves false under mere examination of memory by any American over 50: Not too many decades ago, guns were available at nearly every local department store and auto service station; children carried guns to school on the days they practiced with the marksmanship club (or whatever the school called it); and â€" horror of horrors â€" the welfare state reared its head when impoverished children in some states were given a rifle by the government! And no one ever heard of school shootings.
> 
> Guns are far less available to Americans today than in the 1960â€™s, and school shootings are now a problem. Part of the apparent self-contradiction of that statement lies in not examining the word "available." Guns are, in many places, less available only to law abiding people. Guns always have been freely available to criminals who are willing to use stolen cash to purchase a gun illegally. Large, well-funded street gangs arenâ€™t even going into alleys to buy Saturday-night specials any more, but are getting guns on the international arms market, including large numbers of fully-automatic weapons out of the reach of the rest of us. And large, well-funded street gangs thrive in cities with strong laws against law-abiding people having guns.
> 
> It is important to note that many school shootings are perpetrated by children who have stolen their parentsâ€™ legally owned guns. These are the cases that rightly give rise to agitation against schools and parents who refuse to teach moral right from wrong. And these are the cases that most directly would be prevented if the wannabe shooter didnâ€™t know which teachers were packing heat and which werenâ€™t. While we canâ€™t legislate what parents teach their children, and while it will be nearly impossible (but still should be attempted) to let teachers teach right from wrong, we definitely can legislate in favor of gun possession for law abiding people. Let ordinary citizens and a few schoolteachers follow their own consciences in arming to defend themselves, and watch the school shootings go away."


I agree, weapons ere available in the past, and parents were better parents. but parents aren't very good anymore, and cheaper, better made weapons and ammo are around. population is denser.

look, my father grew up on a rural farm. his famly had "lots" of guns - that basically meant a single fire 45/70 and a shotgun, and they probrably had 10-20 rounds in the house at any given time. the children were all working full time by the time they were 12, so they were vere reposnisble.

now, you have kids who are over stimulated, in houses with 30-40 firearms and thousands of rounds of ammo, who have watched hundreds of violent movies and have no responilbily what so ever, it is harder to control them.

when a kid steals his parents, or his friends parents, or his neighbors gun to commit a crime, that gun owner has responsiblity for the crime.


----------



## Innovan

Now you're reduced to quoting profanity from cartoon characters.

I guess I've won this argument.

Or do we have to wait until you use the H-word?


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:[
> 
> This statement is clear evidence to me that you are a moral man. Moral men cannot imagine themselves killing anyone. Forcing themselves to consider such an unpleasant event, the moral man can imagine using a remote-control weapon, such as a firearm, but cannot imagine kicking the life out of another human being. Unfortunately, the ultra-violent person is not so squeamish, in fact, finding pleasure in brutalizing other people.


no, actually I am somebody who knows something about how hard it is to kill a person without a firearm. the fact that your wife treated many people who have nails shot into them is a sign that that is less easy to kill with nails than guns. and, yes, you can kill with a knife, or a club, or a brick, or a piece of wire, but it is a lot more difficult.


----------



## RJman

> quote:_Originally posted by Innovan_
> 
> Now you're reduced to quoting profanity from cartoon characters.
> 
> I guess I've won this argument.


A conclusion as slipshod as your reasoning.

*************
RJman. Accept no imitations.

Styleforum visitors, please be reassured: The RJ Cat (2'5", 10.1 lb) still  has a posse.


----------



## DougNZ

Please take this to the Interchange. Comparing the size of your weapon is totally inappropriate on a clothing discussion forum.

Please also bear in mind the international nature of this forum. There are countries on this planet other than the US, and American ideals do not always apply to them. Basing your argument on the 'constitutional right to bear arms', for example, means nothing to a large number of us.

Right, go away now. Off to the Interchange with you!

What are you still doing here? Go!


----------



## lostinaustin

guns = eyeglasses = wristwatch

functional items that have (depending on the beholder) potential for aesthetic value.

Fashion item? No. I don't wear fashion items. I hope the items I have (clothes, gloves, umbrella, pistol, knife, keychain) demonstrate a gentleman's interest in gracefulness and beauty.

The kimber is a classic trad pistol for an auto. Revolvers may be more "trad" but I do like the clean lines of a nice auto.

The safety benefti on many double action (esp DA0) autos are appealing to me, so I steer away from the standard 1911s and Glocks. A matter of what you're used to, I'm sure.

One thing seems pretty certain is that the Glock in the USA is a bit of a fashion accessory (in the negative sense). People don't write rap songs about their steyrs or SIGs. 

I'm still waiting on my CC permit, and still considering a smaller pistol for CC.


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working

> quote:_Originally posted by Orb_
> 
> Now that Red States have changed their laws to allow anyone to carry concealed pistols I wonder how many people there carry. When I visit a corporate headquarters in Dallas next week should I assume my colleagues have cell phones, iPods, and Glocks under their jackets?


Yes. And not just on a traditional harness, but beware second and third arms well hidden under the shirt, pants, and in their boots as well. Try not to cut anyone off in line at Starbucks, publicly deride George W., or, heaven forbid, debate any resident that Texas was never its own country, for a hail of gunfire will surely erupt.


----------



## lostinaustin

Wow. Re-reading this thread, I am amazed at how sensitive to this topic some people are.... as if the evil resided in the weapon.

In the spirit of community, I'll say this in addition to my last post:

I disagree with the title of the thread. NOT every gentleman whould have a pistol. Only gentlemen (and gentle ladies) who are trained, competent, and comfortable with their use should have a pistol.

_And _ they should have beautiful pistols.


----------



## FlatSix

> quote:_Originally posted by dah328_
> Fair point? I may grant you that if you can identify one crime committed in the US with a legally obtained "automatic machine gun." Just one crime. In all the years that they've been available. Shouldn't be hard, right?


OOH! OOH! OOH! I KNOW OF THE ONLY ONE!

(A brief note for our European friends. Ownership of an automatic weapon in this country is *severely* restricted. To own a true full-auto weapon, you need to apply under "Class III" which means:

* Paying upwards of $10,000 for the gun. Class III weapons for civilians were discontinued in 1986, which means they are now quite valuable.
* Obtaining the written consent of your local sheriff or police captain. This is often impossible.
* Waiving your rights against search and seizure to the ATF. This is scarier than it sounds: in the Eighties a Class III holder, a deputy sheriff, had his home invaded by the ATF. His pregnant wife was shoved into the wall and had a miscarriage, while a female ATF agent stomped one of his family's kittens to death in front of him. Why? He was slow to open his gun safe.

The Class III requirements are extremely onerous, and as you will see below, legal machineguns are never used in crime here in the US. With one exception.)

About twenty years ago, a legally owned Class III weapon was conclusively linked to a series of murders in the Dayton, Ohio area. The Brady Foundation folks went predicatably nuts, but quickly shut up when it was determined that the weapon belonged to one of a group of Dayton, Ohio police officers who had a profitable side business as contract killers. Oops! And they had so much rhetoric stored up about *how the police are ready to protect us!*

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

"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


----------



## JBZ

Let me preface this by saying that I am licensed to carry a concealed firearm in my home state. I have logged in a good amount of time shooting, mostly with rifles (though not for years). I believe in my right to keep and bear arms and have no problem doing so within the bounds of the law. That said, as a father, I would never, NEVER keep a gun in my house. Too many things can go wrong (and I don't care about the statistics - it's 100% impossible that my children will be hurt by a firearm incident in my home if there is no firearm there to begin with). While I haven't looked up any statistics (which can always be manipulated) I'd be much more concerned with my son getting ahold of a loaded firearm than about a home invasion while my family was in the house (which can be combatted with non-lethal means like locks and home security systems). I would have a hard time allowing my children go play at someone else's house if guns were present, unless I was convinced that they were under very secure lock and key and kept unloaded with the ammunition similarly under lock and key.

Also, honestly, what would most parents' reactions be if they heard their childrens' teachers were coming to class armed? It's a ridiculous idea that shouldn't even seriously be discussed. I'm not sure of the best means to combat the guns in school phenomenon, but shoot-outs between students and teachers is definitely not it ("I'm sorry Principal Skinner, I thought Joey was reaching for a gun - turns out it was gum - I'm glad I only winged him").

I also see no need, at this point in my life, to keep a gun on my person. I don't feel like I'm less of a man (or a "gentleman") because of this. Too many people own guns without the proper safety training. Too many people think that just because they can hit a little round target in a range situation means they are prepared to make a split second decision regarding the use of a firearm in a life or death, high stress situation. As is pointed out above, highly trained individuals such as police officers make mistakes with their firearms. If this is the case, how do you think the average recreational firearms user is going to do? Better? Is good training available for laypeople? Yes. However, I wonder how many take advantage of it.

If carrying a gun makes you feel like a man (or a "gentleman"), then by all means do so. Just be prepared to deal with the consequences.

As an aside, I have no idea what possible threat you could be facing while hiking in the woods that would require you to carry a handgun. You're either concerned about negative interactions with other humans (in which case perhaps you're hiking in the wrong places) or you're under the misguided impression that a handgun (even one with .44 Magnum stopping power) offers you adequate protection against large, aggressive fauna.

Sorry for the ramble.


----------



## Murrah

Allthingstrad:

Have your second contact my second...my duel card is filling up rapidly.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by JBZ_
> 
> Let me preface this by saying that I am licensed to carry a concealed firearm in my home state. I have logged in a good amount of time shooting, mostly with rifles (though not for years). I believe in my right to keep and bear arms and have no problem doing so within the bounds of the law. That said, as a father, I would never, NEVER keep a gun in my house. Too many things can go wrong (and I don't care about the statistics - it's 100% impossible that my children will be hurt by a firearm incident in my home if there is no firearm there to begin with). While I haven't looked up any statistics (which can always be manipulated) I'd be much more concerned with my son getting ahold of a loaded firearm than about a home invasion while my family was in the house (which can be combatted with non-lethal means like locks and home security systems). I would have a hard time allowing my children go play at someone else's house if guns were present, unless I was convinced that they were under very secure lock and key and kept unloaded with the ammunition similarly under lock and key.
> 
> Also, honestly, what would most parents' reactions be if they heard their childrens' teachers were coming to class armed? It's a ridiculous idea that shouldn't even seriously be discussed. I'm not sure of the best means to combat the guns in school phenomenon, but shoot-outs between students and teachers is definitely not it ("I'm sorry Principal Skinner, I thought Joey was reaching for a gun - turns out it was gum - I'm glad I only winged him").
> 
> I also see no need, at this point in my life, to keep a gun on my person. I don't feel like I'm less of a man (or a "gentleman") because of this. Too many people own guns without the proper safety training. Too many people think that just because they can hit a little round target in a range situation means they are prepared to make a split second decision regarding the use of a firearm in a life or death, high stress situation. As is pointed out above, highly trained individuals such as police officers make mistakes with their firearms. If this is the case, how do you think the average recreational firearms user is going to do? Better? Is good training available for laypeople? Yes. However, I wonder how many take advantage of it.
> 
> If carrying a gun makes you feel like a man (or a "gentleman"), then by all means do so. Just be prepared to deal with the consequences.
> 
> As an aside, I have no idea what possible threat you could be facing while hiking in the woods that would require you to carry a handgun. You're either concerned about negative interactions with other humans (in which case perhaps you're hiking in the wrong places) or you're under the misguided impression that a handgun (even one with .44 Magnum stopping power) offers you adequate protection against large, aggressive fauna.
> 
> Sorry for the ramble.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by lostinaustin_
> 
> Wow. Re-reading this thread, I am amazed at how sensitive to this topic some people are.... as if the evil resided in the weapon.


I think that some people don't recognize the power that a firearm gives them.

and, not to snap, but I think that whether or not a weapon is pretty should be the last consideration. to take your eyeglass comparison - most people seem to be carrying a telescope without actually having their eyes checked to see if they need glasses.


----------



## Briguy

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:[
> 
> This statement is clear evidence to me that you are a moral man. Moral men cannot imagine themselves killing anyone. Forcing themselves to consider such an unpleasant event, the moral man can imagine using a remote-control weapon, such as a firearm, but cannot imagine kicking the life out of another human being. Unfortunately, the ultra-violent person is not so squeamish, in fact, finding pleasure in brutalizing other people.
> 
> 
> 
> no, actually I am somebody who knows something about how hard it is to kill a person without a firearm. the fact that your wife treated many people who have nails shot into them is a sign that that is less easy to kill with nails than guns. and, yes, you can kill with a knife, or a club, or a brick, or a piece of wire, but it is a lot more difficult.
Click to expand...

As a shooter, I can only agree that a firearm is a much more efficient killing tool than a knife, club, or so on. If the efficiency of the killing tool influenced the number of deaths in any given society, I would agree that the removal of a particularly efficient killing tool might be a good idea. Unfortunately, the willingness to employ violence, kill, and the embracing of violence as a lifestyle, influences the degree of murder far more profoundly than the efficiency of any particular killing tool. Take away any particular killing tool, you might influence the murder rate slightly. Change the underlying cause of the murders, and the murder rate will plummet.

Take for example, the rate of murder which occurred in the late middle ages, (apologies for not having the exact numbers at my fingertips). Thanks to criminal justice records maintained in the UK (going back over 500 years), we know that the rate of murder during the middle ages was many multiples the modern figures, and this during a period of time when firearms were crude, costly, and generally not available to the public at large. Were knives more efficient back then? Of course not. The lack of state authority, and the inability to enforce a system of laws and justice, led to individuals taking matters into their own hands to redress real or perceived offenses. The removal of knives and clubs from society would not have significantly influenced the murder rate of that era. The increasing power of the state, and the introduction of a system of laws and justice, made individual vengeance unnecessary and, even with the increasing availability of quality firearms, the murder rate plummeted steadily for five centuries.

As such, I argue that the greatest benefit to society lies in the interruption of the process of creating new murderers. Do this, and the availability of firearms is rendered moot.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:[
> 
> This statement is clear evidence to me that you are a moral man. Moral men cannot imagine themselves killing anyone. Forcing themselves to consider such an unpleasant event, the moral man can imagine using a remote-control weapon, such as a firearm, but cannot imagine kicking the life out of another human being. Unfortunately, the ultra-violent person is not so squeamish, in fact, finding pleasure in brutalizing other people.
> 
> 
> 
> no, actually I am somebody who knows something about how hard it is to kill a person without a firearm. the fact that your wife treated many people who have nails shot into them is a sign that that is less easy to kill with nails than guns. and, yes, you can kill with a knife, or a club, or a brick, or a piece of wire, but it is a lot more difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As a shooter, I can only agree that a firearm is a much more efficient killing tool than a knife, club, or so on. If the efficiency of the killing tool influenced the number of deaths in any given society, I would agree that the removal of a particularly efficient killing tool might be a good idea. Unfortunately, the willingness to employ violence, kill, and the embracing of violence as a lifestyle, influences the degree of murder far more profoundly than the efficiency of any particular killing tool. Take away any particular killing tool, you might influence the murder rate slightly. Change the underlying cause of the murders, and the murder rate will plummet.
> 
> Take for example, the rate of murder which occurred in the late middle ages, (apologies for not having the exact numbers at my fingertips). Thanks to criminal justice records maintained in the UK (going back over 500 years), we know that the rate of murder during the middle ages was many multiples the modern figures, and this during a period of time when firearms were crude, costly, and generally not available to the public at large. Were knives more efficient back then? Of course not. The lack of state authority, and the inability to enforce a system of laws and justice, led to individuals taking matters into their own hands to redress real or perceived offenses. The removal of knives and clubs from society would not have significantly influenced the murder rate of that era. The increasing power of the state, and the introduction of a system of laws and justice, made individual vengeance unnecessary and, even with the increasing availability of quality firearms, the murder rate plummeted steadily for five centuries.
> 
> As such, I argue that the greatest benefit to society lies in the interruption of the process of creating new murderers. Do this, and the availability of firearms is rendered moot.
Click to expand...

hmmm..... good point, but not as convincing as one might think. part of the reason for so many murders was the culture of being armed - most men carried arms, be it a sword, a knife, or a club. very poor police, and a general feeling that violence was accepted.

making firearms a part of life is the same thing, with slighly improved technology.


----------



## Briguy

*As an aside, I have no idea what possible threat you could be facing while hiking in the woods that would require you to carry a handgun. You're either concerned about negative interactions with other humans (in which case perhaps you're hiking in the wrong places) or you're under the misguided impression that a handgun (even one with .44 Magnum stopping power) offers you adequate protection against large, aggressive fauna.*

While hiking in the woods in a very remote location, my wife was attacked by a man who tried to rape her. It was only by sheer luck that she was able to escape virtually unharmed. A hiking buddy of hers was nearly beaten to death when he stumbled into a marijuana field while the growers happened to be tending their crop. He was found, barely alive, by another hiker. He suffered permanent brain damage as a result of the beating.


----------



## Briguy

*part of the reason for so many murders was the culture of being armed - *

Persons who posses a carry permit are less likely to be involved in any criminal activity (including violence) than virtually any other segment of society (including police officers). While I do not agree that being armed per se leads to an acceptance of violence (thinking that it is a response to a violent culture), I agree that the acceptance of violence as a cultural norm needs to be snuffed out (well, non-violently, of course...)

But, how do we do that and not trip over freedom of speech issues???


----------



## DougNZ

I wonder how many of you civilians have had to fire your handgun in order to protect your life? Seems to me most of you could have got through life just fine without having to go off and buy something to give you the bulge you were obviously missing.

Should a gentleman have a pistol? Sure, maybe. I own three guns - an air rifle for the kids, a .22 rifle for rabbiting, and a BSA SBS 12 gauge for duckshooting. I also collect British Army Infantry swords and have worked closely with knifemakers. Why? I grew up on a farm where guns were a necessary tool; I find swords to be asthetically pleasing and they are an extension of my fencing interest; and I love the shape, balance and beauty of a well made knife. Collecting and storing / displaying these safely is very much a gentlemanly thing to do, if the gentleman so chooses.

However, I was also taught that the very root of gentlemanly behaviour was a consideration for the feelings of others. Following that was a belief in the qualities of courage, integrity and compassion. At what point, I ask you, does creeping through life with your hand on the butt of a pistol or the hilt of a knife constitute gentleness? It is sad that so many rely on a weapon to assert their manliness.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> *As an aside, I have no idea what possible threat you could be facing while hiking in the woods that would require you to carry a handgun. You're either concerned about negative interactions with other humans (in which case perhaps you're hiking in the wrong places) or you're under the misguided impression that a handgun (even one with .44 Magnum stopping power) offers you adequate protection against large, aggressive fauna.*
> 
> While hiking in the woods in a very remote location, my wife was attacked by a man who tried to rape her. It was only by sheer luck that she was able to escape virtually unharmed. A hiking buddy of hers was nearly beaten to death when he stumbled into a marijuana field while the growers happened to be tending their crop. He was found, barely alive, by another hiker. He suffered permanent brain damage as a result of the beating.


I am sorry to hear about your wife. would a firearm have helped her in that instance more than an alternative arm? I do not mean to make light at all of the situation, and please do not inerpret it that way. I can't imagine my wife handling a firearm. she does, however, carry gas and knows how to use it.

does a man need a .45 with extra high velocity rounds to hike?

I am off to take my son to a playground before it gets dark. as always, I have a small metal canister of gas, that also can be used as a small striking weapon, on my keys.

I will rejoin the fray in a few hours.


----------



## Dmax

> quote:_Originally posted by JBZ_
> 
> Let me preface this by saying that I am licensed to carry a concealed firearm in my home state. I have logged in a good amount of time shooting, mostly with rifles (though not for years). I believe in my right to keep and bear arms and have no problem doing so within the bounds of the law. That said, as a father, I would never, NEVER keep a gun in my house. Too many things can go wrong (and I don't care about the statistics - it's 100% impossible that my children will be hurt by a firearm incident in my home if there is no firearm there to begin with). While I haven't looked up any statistics (which can always be manipulated) I'd be much more concerned with my son getting ahold of a loaded firearm than about a home invasion while my family was in the house (which can be combatted with non-lethal means like locks and home security systems). I would have a hard time allowing my children go play at someone else's house if guns were present, unless I was convinced that they were under very secure lock and key and kept unloaded with the ammunition similarly under lock and key.
> 
> Also, honestly, what would most parents' reactions be if they heard their childrens' teachers were coming to class armed? It's a ridiculous idea that shouldn't even seriously be discussed. I'm not sure of the best means to combat the guns in school phenomenon, but shoot-outs between students and teachers is definitely not it ("I'm sorry Principal Skinner, I thought Joey was reaching for a gun - turns out it was gum - I'm glad I only winged him").
> 
> I also see no need, at this point in my life, to keep a gun on my person. I don't feel like I'm less of a man (or a "gentleman") because of this. Too many people own guns without the proper safety training. Too many people think that just because they can hit a little round target in a range situation means they are prepared to make a split second decision regarding the use of a firearm in a life or death, high stress situation. As is pointed out above, highly trained individuals such as police officers make mistakes with their firearms. If this is the case, how do you think the average recreational firearms user is going to do? Better? Is good training available for laypeople? Yes. However, I wonder how many take advantage of it.
> 
> If carrying a gun makes you feel like a man (or a "gentleman"), then by all means do so. Just be prepared to deal with the consequences.
> 
> As an aside, I have no idea what possible threat you could be facing while hiking in the woods that would require you to carry a handgun. You're either concerned about negative interactions with other humans (in which case perhaps you're hiking in the wrong places) or you're under the misguided impression that a handgun (even one with .44 Magnum stopping power) offers you adequate protection against large, aggressive fauna.
> 
> Sorry for the ramble.


It is certainly your choice how you wish to raise your children. In my opinion all children should be taught how to properly handle a firearm. They should be shown how a firearm operates and what it can do to a watermelon for example. Younger children should the taught to leave the room where they find a firearm and tell an adult. Prohibition of a particular activity or an object without an explanation only serves to inspire curiosity in children.

Teachers should have a choice if they want to arm themselves. You should have a choice to send your children to "Gun free school" if you wish. That school should have a big sign in the front that says: This is a Gun Free School". That way some digruntled students would not hesitate before going on a rampage.

A "shoot-out" between a teacher and a criminal is certainly better than one-sided slaughter in which the criminal or criminals kill with impunity.
Regarding your Principal Scinner anology, if you think the teachers in that school have a problem with controlling their impulses and temper maybe you should find a different school.

Totally agree with this point:
"If carrying a gun makes you feel like a man (or a "gentleman"), then by all means do so. Just be prepared to deal with the consequences"

IMHO, a slug from 44. magnum caliber handgun will stop any hostile wildlife almost immediatelly. For those of us who trully paranoid of meeting mr. Grizzly there is always the .480 Ruger, .$454 Casull, .50 AE and .500 S&W magnum.

Dimitry


----------



## DukeGrad

Gentlemen

BrigGuy, you bring up personal reasons why some carry a weapon.
A lot of people have these experiences.
A lot.
I have same issues I have gone through, thus I keep up my skills with a weapon, as much as I did in the military.
There are a lot of crazy people in the world.
Each individual has their own reasons to carry a weapon.
I have had some, as I explained.
I am going to be forthright here, I carry a weapon, concealed as well.
First reason, personal protection, of myself and my family.
I know how to use my weapon, have owned many.
I was expert with my first weapon, in 1970.
I am a better shot, again, different motivators.
I agree with the vast majority, do not put a gun in the hand of someone, who does not know how to use it, strip it, and maintain it.

I agree about the right to bear arms, this was devised to protect the civilian population, from its politicians!

Another fear, something I find troubling, the police force that is out there.
The beatings, killings! Unecessary force when I read these and learn about them.
Since I retired, have been heartbroken by the mess we have going on in this country.
What gives?
Blame it on the baby boomers?
There is not a good answer, but, never take away the right to bear arms, if one wants to do so, then they must pay the piper, if need be.

Gentlemen, have a nice day
Touchy subject 


Jimmy


----------



## DukeGrad

Globetrotter

Yes.
BrigGuys wife, would have had the opportunity and the right to defend herself in that situation!
She would have had the right, to make a decision.
The decision is very clear in that situation.
To shoot or maim.

Gentlemen

Got to go!

Nice day my friends






Jimmy


----------



## Rocker

> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working_
> As to the riots in France, I most certainly agree that similar riots in the US would have produced multiple shootings. Perhaps you feel safer unarmed even if those were to occur near your home. I would not.
> 
> 
> 
> If I have to choose between a situation where I have a firearm but so do the dozens of youths burning cars outside vs a situation where nobody has firearms, I do indeed feel safer in the second case.
> 
> I did not say "unarmed", by the way. I work out, am a fencer and have a minimal knowledge of combat sports. I have other means to defend myself that do not require any firearm. A good sturdy stick comes to mind.
Click to expand...

I don't mean this as an anti-French slam, and in fact, it could be applied to most of Europe; I'm merely using France as an example to bring the big picture "home." The right to bear arms in the U.S. was provided mostly as a defense against tyrannical government. The American revolution could not have happened without an armed citizenry and the founding fathers knew that.

How many Frenchman were arbitrarily killed, deported and gassed in occupied France during WWII? How many in Vichy France? The Warsaw Ghetto uprising demonstrates the cost to be paid by a tyranny attempting to crush an armed populace. How many Jews would have been exterminated if the German knew that behind every door they were about to kick in there was likely an armed civilian? I think far fewer and even if not, the victims would have had the satisfaction, of maybe taking a German with them instead of being led quietly to their doom. The idea of Americans being led like docile sheep on railroad cars to gas chambers is ludicrous - and yet millions of Europeans went that way not so long ago. So, yes, we may have some problems with gun ownership - but we don't face the risk s that you do of being largely incapable of defending our selves against a government gone wrong.

I'm no gun nut. I do own a 12 and 20 gauge double barrel shotgun which I use for trap/skeet/pheasant - but I do like the idea that I can get a pistol or a rifle should I want one. I like that I'm not at the government's mercy to protect me and that I can take action on my own behalf. In short, as an American, I'm willing to put up with some of the gun related violence, in exchange for the freedoms it confers. I'll bet there are some European newspaper editors right now who wish they had a gun to carry. Iâ€™m not so sure in the decades to come, that many Europeans wonâ€™t be wishing they had guns instead of being left to hope that the government protects them.


----------



## Dmax

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> *As an aside, I have no idea what possible threat you could be facing while hiking in the woods that would require you to carry a handgun. You're either concerned about negative interactions with other humans (in which case perhaps you're hiking in the wrong places) or you're under the misguided impression that a handgun (even one with .44 Magnum stopping power) offers you adequate protection against large, aggressive fauna.*
> 
> While hiking in the woods in a very remote location, my wife was attacked by a man who tried to rape her. It was only by sheer luck that she was able to escape virtually unharmed. A hiking buddy of hers was nearly beaten to death when he stumbled into a marijuana field while the growers happened to be tending their crop. He was found, barely alive, by another hiker. He suffered permanent brain damage as a result of the beating.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry to hear about your wife. would a firearm have helped her in that instance more than an alternative arm? I do not mean to make light at all of the situation, and please do not inerpret it that way. I can't imagine my wife handling a firearm. she does, however, carry gas and knows how to use it.
> 
> does a man need a .45 with extra high velocity rounds to hike?
> 
> I am off to take my son to a playground before it gets dark. as always, I have a small metal canister of gas, that also can be used as a small striking weapon, on my keys.
> 
> I will rejoin the fray in a few hours.
Click to expand...

"does a man need a .45 with extra high velocity rounds to hike?"

I thought Briguy just demonstrated why one might wish to carry a weapon while hiking?
What is "extra high velocity" round? .45 ACP is actually a fairly slow round as far as pistol rounds are concerned.

No offence but this is what I think of the metal can you carry on your keychain:


----------



## Dmax

> _Originally posted by DougNZ_
> 
> I wonder how many of you civilians have had to fire your handgun in order to protect your life? Seems to me most of you could have got through life just fine without having to go off and buy something to give you the bulge you were obviously missing."
> 
> Ohh.. now you got us figured out Doug. I need a big pistol because I have a small penis.


----------



## Murrah

> quote:Seems to me most of you could have got through life just fine without having to go off and buy something to give you the bulge you were obviously missing.


Thus endeth the debate, with Doug from Middle Earth the clear victor by playing the "you have a small pee pee" card.


----------



## DougNZ

Your friend being beaten half to death is a terrible and dispicable act. So, too, is the attack on your wife.

However, I wonder if your friend would still be alive if his attackers saw him reach for a gun and used theirs. Had your wife shot her attacker, would she have any less nightmares for killing a man than surviving a rape? And what would have happened to her if she had missed with her first shot?

These are horrible thoughts but must be considered in the choice to carry weapons. Concealing a gun or knife is no fail safe to surviving an attack; using, or attempting to use, one does not guarantee you'll stay alive.


----------



## Étienne

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> If the efficiency of the killing tool influenced the number of deaths in any given society, I would agree that the removal of a particularly efficient killing tool might be a good idea.


Actually it is forbidden to carry, not only a firearm, but almost any type of arm in France, including long knives, unless safely tucked away in a bag. It would have been illegal for me to carry the sword-cane I briefly considered buying.



> quote:_Originally posted by Rocker_
> How many Frenchman were arbitrarily killed, deported and gassed in occupied France during WWII? How many in Vichy France? The Warsaw Ghetto uprising demonstrates the cost to be paid by a tyranny attempting to crush an armed populace.


I think you are making rather broad assumptions and generalizations here.

Those Frenchmen arbitrarily killed, deported and gassed were so despite the fact that an armed clandestine movement operated. Often, in fact, in retaliation to said movement's actions.

There is a lot of historical literature on the question, a very valid one, of why so many people let themselves be killed with hardly any resistance. Your assumption that it is because they were not armed does not really explain a lot, but it would be rather lengthy to go in detail about it.



> quote:
> How many Jews would have been exterminated if the German knew that behind every door they were about to kick in there was likely an armed civilian? I think far fewer


Frankly, I think you are completely misled here. Take the example of the German communist movement. This was a movement of armed people expecting to have to fight a revolution or resist an oppression. And yet they were deported and killed with hardly any problem. Frankly, the process was much more complex that what you picture here.



> quote:
> The idea of Americans being led like docile sheep on railroad cars to gas chambers is ludicrous


I very much doubt so.

By the way, it might have occured to you that history is full of tyranies overthrown without the need for people to have been widely armed before (which means arming the partisans of tyranny as well as the insurgents). In 1789 the French people did not have the right to bear arms, and yet they succeeded. Ditto in 1830 and 1848.


----------



## Bonhamesque

> quote:_Originally posted by pinchi22_
> 
> I can respect your contitutional right to bear arms, and can appreciate the instrinsic craftsmanship in a weapon, but please refrain from making any connection between shooting firearms (possibly at human beings) and being a "gentleman". I think this connection is about as tenuous as being a gentleman and hanging someone in the name of vigilante justice.


Pinchi22 is right.
This says it all. Bear in mind this is a fashion forum.
Talk about guns as much as you like but don't relate it to fashion or being a gentleman. That's just wrong.


----------



## DukeGrad

Doug

The weapon she used, would have put a smile on her face, as she watched her attacker die.
It is simple, fact of life.
She has this right to protect herself, not many people do.

I disagree about the nightmares, too much wellness on the news stations.

Nice day my friends

Jimmy


----------



## DukeGrad

Rocker

Very good points on the War, Germany, and the right to bear arms then.
I agree, for me, just having the freedom to make that decision, would have sufficed.
I would have elected to shoot, many times then.

Nice day
Great points

Jimmy


----------



## DougNZ

> quote:Thus endeth the debate, with Doug from Middle Earth the clear victor by playing the "you have a small pee pee" card.


Oh, please!

Do you put on your safety cage when you cross the street? Do you drive everywhere at less than 30mph? You have way more chance of being killed in a pedestrian accident or in an automobile smash than from a shooting.

I'm sure there is a deep underlying issue in the American psyche for the carrying of handguns by civilians to be deemed so important.


----------



## DougNZ

> quote:Very good points on the War, Germany, and the right to bear arms then.


I agree. But there is a difference between storing weapons and carrying them in every day life.


----------



## Murrah

My psychological state is that I have a wife and small child that I will take all necessary measures to protect.


----------



## DukeGrad

Doug

I apologize if I was confusing.
I did not say store arms, meant to carry arms, and hide, when I was discussing WW2.

Nice day my friend

Jimmy


----------



## Relayer

[/quote]

I am off to take my son to a playground before it gets dark. as always, I have a small metal canister of gas, that also can be used as a small striking weapon, on my keys.

[/quote]

Do you live in a dangerous area? Under what circumstances do you suspect that you may need to use your gas? Would you spray someone who just wanted to rob you? Or only on someone who you thought intended you physical harm? Can you be sure of the difference between the two when trouble approaches? How much are you willing to risk on that judgement?

Heaven forbid that you get into hand-to-hand combat with a vicious street-wise attacker, as who knows what damage may satisfy him if you have the audacity to fight back.

As I'm sure you know, gas (whatever type) is a notoriously poor performer to ward of a determined attack, often serving only to infuriate an attacker (esp if that person is high or deranged), possibly provoking a higher level of aggression from the attacker. It's also not at all easy to use effectively, even for the very few folks who attempt to practice with it. You have to be very close to your attacker and the odds are very high that you'll also get a healthy dose of it yourself, incapacitating you to some extent.

I hope you never have the need to use it, but I applaud your making at least that effort at arming yourself to meet the possibility.


----------



## GentleCheetah

> quote:_Originally posted by Dr James Ryan_
> 
> Im curious as to how many here enjoy pistols and revolvers. What do you think is the classiest model? I am partial to a blued 1911 with rosewood grips, such as this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A bit of holster wear adds character too, in my opinion.
> 
> While we're on the subject, do any of you carry, and if so how you fit your piece into your wardrobe selection? In a suit, I like a full sized 1911, strong side, outside the wasteband. Without a jacket, or at work where it needs to be 100% concealed, I like a subcompact glock, crossdraw, tucked inside of my shirt. I find crossdraw the only way to properly conceal without a jacket.


I like guns in general. But I don't own one. I may get a rifle soon once I get into hunting. The value of pistols is highly questionable. It's a side arm and not particularly powerful. It's a weapon of last resort. For home defense, you're better served by a 12-gauge shotgun.

Personally, I don't like carrying a weapon concealed. Display is important.

If I can carry a weapon around, I prefer katana.

The Gentle Cheetah


----------



## DukeGrad

Gentlecheetah

You are right, and a sawed off one at that.
Again, with good skills, a high caliber bullet, anything is great in a close enviroment.

Relayer, your comments and input are very kind and nice.
Thank you.
I, for myself, am talking of one person, ones experiences.
That is why I do what I do.
I dont expect a large populice to agree with my feelings.
I have been there, on both sides, as military and civilian.
This is why I do this.
Thank you for your understanding and comment

Gentlemen

I am at work!
LOL

Nice day my friends

Jimmy


----------



## Rocker

> quote:
> I think you are making rather broad assumptions and generalizations here.
> 
> Those Frenchmen arbitrarily killed, deported and gassed were so despite the fact that an armed clandestine movement operated. Often, in fact, in retaliation to said movement's actions.
> 
> There is a lot of historical literature on the question, a very valid one, of why so many people let themselves be killed with hardly any resistance. Your assumption that it is because they were not armed does not really explain a lot, but it would be rather lengthy to go in detail about it.


Yes, I know. Mostly it was because it was Jews getting killed and hence the majority of the European population felt no real imminient threat. Regardless of what their motivation may or may not have been - the point is, they had not the tools to resist if they had wanted to. Again, I think the Warsaw uprising gives pretty clear evidence of what an armed population, which knows its fate, can do - and it can do alot. And you ignore the fact that even if one is going to die, there is great deal to be said for the fact that, at least, with a weapon one has the satisfaction of knowing that one can maybe take an enemy with him.



> quote:
> 
> Frankly, I think you are completely misled here. Take the example of the German communist movement. This was a movement of armed people expecting to have to fight a revolution or resist an oppression. And yet they were deported and killed with hardly any problem. Frankly, the process was much more complex that what you picture here.


There's a big differnce between quelling the Spartacists and fighting against a massively armed civilian population - they're not analogous. I can't even begin to explain how these diverge - Consider Stalingrad and how it tied up German forces - now imagine every European city had a relatively large population of armed civlians. Here in the U.S., towards the end of the Civil War - it was just that idea of armed citizens, no longer in military units, going back tothe South and fighting an insurgencey that was the nightmare scenario wich casued the North to grant pretty generous terms all in all - these are not easy victories to gain. The U.S. current situation in Iraq is evidence of this - if the vast majority of Iraqis really wanted to fight the U.S., it would be untenable - fortunately, it does not appear to be the case, for now. Germany was able to concentrate on the Eastern Front becasue its occupied territories in western Europe were actually pretty docile.



> quote:
> The idea of Americans being led like docile sheep on railroad cars to gas chambers is ludicrous


I very much doubt so.[/quote]

You don't know Americans very well, then. Or maybe you only meet effete Americans from big, coastal cities.



> quote:
> By the way, it might have occured to you that history is full of tyranies overthrown without the need for people to have been widely armed before (which means arming the partisans of tyranny as well as the insurgents). In 1789 the French people did not have the right to bear arms, and yet they succeeded. Ditto in 1830 and 1848.


But they affected not much change - is France on the Fourth, or Fifth Republic now? All you did in 1789 was swop out a king for an Emperor who then drafted your population into the Army only to leave their corpses scattered across Europe - and then you brought back a monarch again, only to get rid of it. It appears the French people, were more a force to be controlled than a controlling force. And what this really depended on was NOT the people, but the Army; Did the people of France REALLY want to invade Russia - or was it an unelected Emperor who did? Napoleon got where he did not because the people chose him, but becasue he could use the army to crush them - he did use canister shot against the population of Paris, didn't he? Was this really the will of the people. I'll plead ignorance on the spefcific events of 1830 and 1848 - I can't comment.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Relayer_


I am off to take my son to a playground before it gets dark. as always, I have a small metal canister of gas, that also can be used as a small striking weapon, on my keys.

[/quote]

Do you live in a dangerous area? Under what circumstances do you suspect that you may need to use your gas? Would you spray someone who just wanted to rob you? Or only on someone who you thought intended you physical harm? Can you be sure of the difference between the two when trouble approaches? How much are you willing to risk on that judgement?

Heaven forbid that you get into hand-to-hand combat with a vicious street-wise attacker, as who knows what damage may satisfy him if you have the audacity to fight back.

As I'm sure you know, gas (whatever type) is a notoriously poor performer to ward of a determined attack, often serving only to infuriate an attacker (esp if that person is high or deranged), possibly provoking a higher level of aggression from the attacker. It's also not at all easy to use effectively, even for the very few folks who attempt to practice with it. You have to be very close to your attacker and the odds are very high that you'll also get a healthy dose of it yourself, incapacitating you to some extent.

I hope you never have the need to use it, but I applaud your making at least that effort at arming yourself to meet the possibility.

[/quote]

R, you miss my point, as does DukeGrad - I think that a non-lethal form of protection is more effective, in most instances and for most people.

I simply don't believe that that many women or men will pull out a firearm and shoot an attacker, or that they will be able to operate their weapon in an effective way to invtervien in an attack. to anwer your specfic questions - well, if I was alone and somebody wanted to rob me, at this point in my life, I would probrably give him what he wanted. I have, 3 times in my life, engaged a mugger and gotten away, but I probrably wouldn't do it today If I were with my son, or wife, I would probrably hurt him. one of the advantages of something like the gas is that I really don't have to worry about overkill. but don't misunderstand me, I would have no problem shooting a mugger, I just don't think that it would be nessasary. and, if a man can get through me and my gas, he would be able to get through a civillian and a handgun, probrably.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by DukeGrad_
> 
> Globetrotter
> 
> Yes.
> BrigGuys wife, would have had the opportunity and the right to defend herself in that situation!
> She would have had the right, to make a decision.
> The decision is very clear in that situation.
> To shoot or maim.
> 
> Gentlemen
> 
> Got to go!
> 
> Nice day my friends
> 
> Jimmy


I have no question that she has the right to defend herself. I do not believe that the best way for her to do so is a firearm. of course, as I have mentioned many times before, that is not my choice, but my suggestion. I think that too many people think that they will be able to fire at a person, and then find that they can't. or, more commonly, they can't operate the weapon well enough to get it positioned to fire.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Dmax_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> *
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> "does a man need a .45 with extra high velocity rounds to hike?"
> 
> I thought Briguy just demonstrated why one might wish to carry a weapon while hiking?
> What is "extra high velocity" round? .45 ACP is actually a fairly slow round as far as pistol rounds are concerned.
> 
> No offence but this is what I think of the metal can you carry on your keychain:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> you haven't been reading the whole thread - yes, .45 is a slow slug. somebody had mentioned that he has specially loaded high velocity .45 shells for his hiking. I found that interesting.
> 
> I know that tear gas doens't have the same whole phalic thing to it, but it has a huge advantage - I can carry it anywhere, without worrying about it being misused, I can use it in literally a second, and I don't have to worry about it killing anybody I don't want it to kill. in terms of stoping power, believe me, I don't think that anybody wants to be on the other end of my gas.
> 
> look at is this way - if 3 or 4 huge 16 year olds start hasseling you, are you going to shoot them? if you are standing around with a bunch of kids and a crazy guy jumps out and grabs a kid and starts running, are you going to shoot him in the middle? if a father at a soccer match starts beating up on a mother, are you going to shoot him? aside from a shoot out, this gives me ansers to ever problem that your phallic symbol does, and it ansers more.*
Click to expand...


----------



## pendennis

> quote:_Originally posted by DougNZ_
> 
> Please take this to the Interchange. Comparing the size of your weapon is totally inappropriate on a clothing discussion forum.
> 
> Please also bear in mind the international nature of this forum. There are countries on this planet other than the US, and American ideals do not always apply to them. Basing your argument on the 'constitutional right to bear arms', for example, means nothing to a large number of us.
> 
> Right, go away now. Off to the Interchange with you!
> 
> What are you still doing here? Go!


Doug, perhaps you should pay attention to the U.S. Constitution. The United States exports freedom, and it's contagious. Your country can afford to put its collective head in the sand. Yours, along with a large part of the Free World countries, live off the secure freedom the United States provides. I don't believe we have ever tried to deny the visit of a foreign ship based on the fact that we decided to be "nuclear free". Your country did that to our own U.S. Navy.

Your neighbor, Australia, has banned many types of privately owned arms, including many hunting shotguns, and along with England, are reaping the fruits of their efforts. English citizens have been advised that they have no right to defend their homes against intruders. So, when your benevolent government or some neanderthal criminal comes and rousts you from your home and hearth, don't cry that your rights are being denied. You've long since given up that mantle.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## GentleCheetah

How about this: It doesn't matter what weapon you prefer, as long as you are willing and prepared to kill the other man who puts your life in danger; if you are unwilling to pull the trigger, pointing a gun at a dangerous man will only get you killed.

The Gentle Cheetah


----------



## pendennis

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> *As an aside, I have no idea what possible threat you could be facing while hiking in the woods that would require you to carry a handgun. You're either concerned about negative interactions with other humans (in which case perhaps you're hiking in the wrong places) or you're under the misguided impression that a handgun (even one with .44 Magnum stopping power) offers you adequate protection against large, aggressive fauna.*
> 
> While hiking in the woods in a very remote location, my wife was attacked by a man who tried to rape her. It was only by sheer luck that she was able to escape virtually unharmed. A hiking buddy of hers was nearly beaten to death when he stumbled into a marijuana field while the growers happened to be tending their crop. He was found, barely alive, by another hiker. He suffered permanent brain damage as a result of the beating.


Briguy, I also carry a large caliber handgun when hiking (Ruger Single Action, .45 colt caliber). I also carry a Randall custom combat knife. Anyone foolish enough to go into deep woods or unknown trails is asking for trouble if not prepared. I have happened upon a black bear sow and her cubs. She was as agressive as any animal could be. She was protecting her young. I backed out and left, but I was also prepared to shoot her if the need arose.

The problems arise, not so much because of the unknown, but more the lack of preparedness.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## Étienne

> quote:_Originally posted by Rocker_
> There's a big differnce between quelling the Spartacists and fighting against a massively armed civilian population - they're not analogous.


Indeed. But there are very few places where the German forces were actively slaughtering the entire civilian population. Mainly, the Eastern Territories, and that's about it. In the rest of Europe, repression was targeted on specific groups (political or ethnic - jews and roms), which is rather analogous. Also bear in mind that for a long time those people did not know (indeed could not imagine) what their fate would be. The deception was maintained even in the concentration camps. That explains a lot how those jew and rom population could let themselves be led to the gas chambers.



> quote:
> You don't know Americans very well, then. Or maybe you only meet effete Americans from big, coastal cities.


Is Chicago a coastal city? That's where I lived the longest in America.

In any case I find it rather difficult to follow your leaps in reasoning. Let me just center the debate on what we were discussing. Your idea is that a widespread ownership of firearms in the civilian population is a protection, and that this is worth any additional violence this situation may provoke over the years. What are these firearms supposed to protect against?

Against a tyrannical government? Even the most tyrannical government has supporters in the population, and you are arming them as well as potential insurgents.

Against an invasion? That might facilitate resistance movements, but the most effective for those is hardly the handguns we are talking about. The French insurgents were using British-produced Sten machine-guns, not handguns.

I don't mean by any means that there absolutely no "added protection every 50 years or so" effect. But to me, this is clearly not worth the "added danger every day of my life" effect.


----------



## GentleCheetah

Some people (mis)interpret the gentlemanly quality as the ability to turn the other cheek. I beg to differ. It is one thing to walk away from a potential dangerous situation wherein there's a high probability to lose, i.e., empty-handed against a gang with weapons; it is an entirely different matter to take one-on-one physical assaults with smiles.

In the old days, the gentlemen carried swords and were ready to fight on any perceived slights. The commoners, in contrast, were the ones who were barred (either legally or socially) from carrying weapons.

Someone mentioned his guy friend who sneaked around with a hunk's girlfriend, who didn't fight back at the hunk's punch. I have only contempt for that guy: He is a quintessential beta. Studies of Chimpanzees showed that beta males actually have more sex (behind the backs of the alphas) than the alphas; the alphas spend way too much of their time and energy on defending their turfs and social positions. 



The Gentle Cheetah


----------



## Relayer

> quote:[
> 
> look at is this way - if 3 or 4 huge 16 year olds start hasseling you, are you going to shoot them? if you are standing around with a bunch of kids and a crazy guy jumps out and grabs a kid and starts running, are you going to shoot him in the middle? if a father at a soccer match starts beating up on a mother, are you going to shoot him? aside from a shoot out, this gives me ansers to ever problem that your phallic symbol does, and it ansers more.


Sometimes deadly force must be used. And even so for a civilian it can be necessary and justified. I like the idea of carrying gas, but it most certainly is not the answer to every situation.

What if you see a man approaching you, say 45 feet away, gun in his hand and he's pointing it at you? Are you going to say 'Stop! or I'll spray you when you get within range!" ? Unlikely? Maybe. You carry gas even though it is unlikely that you'll need it. Just something to think about when you disuss with others.

Now you suggest many scenarios where you may be helpless no matter what you are armed with, but ther will still be circumstances where being armed gives you a chance you might not otherwise have. I dont think it's silly or wrong to reserve that chance. Just as you're apparently ready to engage in hand-to-hand, if need be. I don't intend to engage anyone in hand-to-hand. If I'm not the hoss I think I am, I may end up putting myself and others at the mercy of someone who I have no idea when they might decide to stop beating/kicking/etc me.


----------



## Innovan

The problem with "non-lethal" weapons is that they will, under some circumstances, become lethal anyway.

Tazers have caused heart attacks and killed.
Tear gas has caused severe allergic reactions, suffocated and killed.
Immobilizing foams have suffocated and killed.
Rubber bullets, "bean bags" and wooden chocks have all killed.

So these weapons can only properly be called "less lethal", not non-lethal.


----------



## lostinaustin

I've had this conversation so many times with dear friends from overseas and with denizens of the northern-Atlantic seaboard (yankees in our dialect).

The following statement doesn't encapsulate my entire view, but it gets the main point across. Usually, my friends don't have much of a response:

*My wife carries a pistol because they don't sell rape insurance.*


----------



## pendennis

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> ["does a man need a .45 with extra high velocity rounds to hike?"
> 
> I thought Briguy just demonstrated why one might wish to carry a weapon while hiking?
> 
> What is "extra high velocity" round? .45 ACP is actually a fairly slow round as far as pistol rounds are concerned.
> 
> you haven't been reading the whole thread - yes, .45 is a slow slug. somebody had mentioned that he has specially loaded high velocity .45 shells for his hiking. I found that interesting.


The factory loads for .45 ACP and the .45 Colt are both rated the same, with a 230 gr. bullet. This is done so that older Colt and other make firearms would not be in danger of rupturing with modern 
high-pressure loads.

I load the .45 Colt round with a hollow point hunting bullet when I hike. It's chambered in a Ruger single action revolver, which will stand the higher pressure loads. My intent is to use as an animal stopper, not necessarily as a man stopper. It's carried in a holster on my right hip, and ready to deploy quickly. I've hiked in areas where the critters are big enough to kill and eat a person, so I don't risk being unarmed. I also carry a custom-made sheath knife, which some would consider overkill, but that is my decision.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, most casualties come from lack of preparedness.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Relayer_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:[
> 
> look at is this way - if 3 or 4 huge 16 year olds start hasseling you, are you going to shoot them? if you are standing around with a bunch of kids and a crazy guy jumps out and grabs a kid and starts running, are you going to shoot him in the middle? if a father at a soccer match starts beating up on a mother, are you going to shoot him? aside from a shoot out, this gives me ansers to ever problem that your phallic symbol does, and it ansers more.
> 
> 
> 
> good question. let me put it this way, I do not believe that any of the guys here who carry a handgun has a better answr to your quesiton. if you have a handgun in your holster and somebody is aiming a handgun at you, are you going to outdraw him? sorry, I doubt that very much.
> 
> so, in the event that I run into somebody who has a firearm, but hasn't yet drawn it, maybe I can out draw him. the liklyhood of that happening is about 1/100,000 of the liklyhood of somebody in my family, or myself, having a heart attack. it makes much more sense for me to carry a defibrilator than a handgun.
> Sometimes deadly force must be used. And even so for a civilian it can be necessary and justified. I like the idea of carrying gas, but it most certainly is not the answer to every situation.
> 
> What if you see a man approaching you, say 45 feet away, gun in his hand and he's pointing it at you? Are you going to say 'Stop! or I'll spray you when you get within range!" ? Unlikely? Maybe. You carry gas even though it is unlikely that you'll need it. Just something to think about when you disuss with others.
> 
> Now you suggest many scenarios where you may be helpless no matter what you are armed with, but ther will still be circumstances where being armed gives you a chance you might not otherwise have. I dont think it's silly or wrong to reserve that chance. Just as you're apparently ready to engage in hand-to-hand, if need be. I don't intend to engage anyone in hand-to-hand. If I'm not the hoss I think I am, I may end up putting myself and others at the mercy of someone who I have no idea when they might decide to stop beating/kicking/etc me.
Click to expand...


----------



## pendennis

> quote:_Originally posted by Innovan_
> 
> The problem with "non-lethal" weapons is that they will, under some circumstances, become lethal anyway.
> 
> Tazers have caused heart attacks and killed.
> Tear gas has caused severe allergic reactions, suffocated and killed.
> Immobilizing foams have suffocated and killed.
> Rubber bullets, "bean bags" and wooden chocks have all killed.
> 
> So these weapons can only properly be called "less lethal", not non-lethal.


They all have the same shortcomings - they are designed to be inherently non-lethal, and are part of the "shoot to wound" mentality.

Never bring a knife to a gun fight.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Innovan_
> 
> The problem with "non-lethal" weapons is that they will, under some circumstances, become lethal anyway.
> 
> Tazers have caused heart attacks and killed.
> Tear gas has caused severe allergic reactions, suffocated and killed.
> Immobilizing foams have suffocated and killed.
> Rubber bullets, "bean bags" and wooden chocks have all killed.
> 
> So these weapons can only properly be called "less lethal", not non-lethal.


I wouldnt use a taser, they have no advantage and all the disadvantages of a handgun. gas has been known to kill, but that is about as unlikely as a meteor hitting you.

the advantage of gas and sticks is that it is pretty much impossible to kill by accident, and it is very difficult to have the weapon used against you. most important, because of that, you can keep it handy and easily accessible.


----------



## Fogey

For urban self-defence, just walk around with an anti-social pet:


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Innovan_
> 
> The problem with "non-lethal" weapons is that they will, under some circumstances, become lethal anyway.
> 
> Tazers have caused heart attacks and killed.
> Tear gas has caused severe allergic reactions, suffocated and killed.
> Immobilizing foams have suffocated and killed.
> Rubber bullets, "bean bags" and wooden chocks have all killed.
> 
> So these weapons can only properly be called "less lethal", not non-lethal.
> 
> 
> 
> They all have the same shortcomings - they are designed to be inherently non-lethal, and are part of the "shoot to wound" mentality.
> 
> Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
> 
> Dennis
> If you wish to control the future, then create it.
> Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae
Click to expand...

our assumption is that your weapon is a better anser than mine, and that I am somehow against using the better weapon for some reason. I would suggest that using the proper weapon for the proper situation is much wiser.

I don't think that we are going to convince each other. as I have said on a similar thread, a while back, I think that my opinion holds pretty good weight in the subject -I guarantee you that if I hung out my shingle as a consultant with my cv I would have people lining up around the block to pay me money to tell them how to protect themsevles, as long as I told them things that made them feel manly.

I jsut don't think that most civillians will do a good job operating a firearm. some will, and you seem to train well and take it seriously. maybe wehn the time comes, hopefully it won't, but if it doesn maybe you will be able to put what you have learned to use.

I think that, from a purely effectivness point of view, you do better by taking into account what your real needs are, and planning accordiningly.

I also feel that the risk involved in having firearms around doens't justify the value of having them. you, and many others here, disagree. we won't convince each other.

anyway, peace be with you all. and I hope that you never have to use all that hardware you so proudly tote around.


----------



## Aus_MD

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> I think that, from a purely effectivness point of view, you do better by taking into account what your real needs are, and planning accordiningly.
> 
> I also feel that the risk involved in having firearms around doens't justify the value of having them. you, and many others here, disagree.


I agree. Many, many studies show that householders with firearms in USA have higher rates of homicide (as victims) and suicide, than non-owners.

In other words having a gun in your home makes it more likely that you will grease someone in your family, or they will grease you, or one of you will blow your brains out with your fashion accessory.

I guess you have to weigh that against the risk that you are going to be the victim of violent crime, but for most middle / upper-middle class Americans that risk is fairly small.

Aus_MD


----------



## DougNZ

The more I read this thread (which I find a fascinating look into the minds of Americans) the more I am glad I live in the country I do.

And thank God, Dennis, that we have you to look after the rest of the world. Whew!


----------



## mgnov

I like his shirt, but the neckwear is a tad loud.


----------



## Murrah

Lostinaustin:

Swedish girls had to come up with anti-rape devices because Swedish men refuse to take appropriate steps to stop Muslim rape gangs.

https://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2546


----------



## Relayer

My final post in this thread, as we are now down to talking in circles, basically, and professing our love for our country as opposed to others (and nothing wrong with that).

Globetrotter,

A man walking toward you at 45 feet away is very unlikely to hit you if he chooses to shoot. Especially if you are on the move, which I would strongly suggest. Your gas poses no threat or deterrent to him. Can you agree with this? Maybe you can hit him if you throw it at him.

If you say that you could not draw your gun while retreating to some cover, I will acept that. I, however, can. In any case, I have optionsand a chance, you have to hope that you can outrun him. I'm not that fast afoot at 49 years of age. Maybe you have exceptional speed. If not, you can always hope that you can talk him out of pulling the trigger on you. I hope that you can.

It's been entertaining.

All the best!


----------



## FlatSix

> quote:good question. let me put it this way, I do not believe that any of the guys here who carry a handgun has a better answr to your quesiton. if you have a handgun in your holster and somebody is aiming a handgun at you, are you going to outdraw him? sorry, I doubt that very much.


Actually, it's a quirk of human nature that you will do just fine.

Want to try it yourself? It's easy:

* Give your friend a device which can click or make noise. An empty pistol pointed in a safe direction is fine, or a mouse with a click button, anything.

* Have your friend prepare to click.

* Now draw and see if you can beat him to the click.

*Action* time is faster than *reaction* time, and much faster than *reaction plus decision* time.

I used to perform that "party trick" all the time with a Tanfoglio TZ-85 in a Galco SST (I believe it was an SST) holster. Even when people understood the rules of the game, they couldn't beat me. And I am not an exemplary pistolero - I won a couple of small competitions but I doubt I am the stone cold killer Mr. Globetrotter is.

By the by, Chicago has a complete firearm ban and has had one for a long time. Any Europeans looking to gauge American attitudes about firearms would not be well-served by going to Chicago. It would be like learning American attitudes about marathon running in an amputee ward.

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

"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


----------



## bosthist

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> Any Europeans looking to gauge American attitudes about firearms would not be well-served by going to Chicago. It would be like learning American attitudes about marathon running in an amputee ward.


https://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2005/20050415_624.html

*Amputee Soldier to Compete in Boston Marathon*

WASHINGTON, April 15, 2005 â€" A soldier will compete in the Boston Marathon April 18, a year to the day after an improvised explosive device blast in Baghdad, Iraq, cost him his right leg.

Army Staff Sgt. Hilbert Caesar will hand-crank his custom sports wheelchairs in the annual race. A former member of the 4th Battalion, 27th Infantry, from Baumholder, Germany, Caesar was the first soldier to cross the finish line in the New York City Marathon in November. In a field of 83 hand-crank bicyclists, Caesar finished in 17th place, with a time of 1 hour, 53 minutes.

<snip>

Stateside, Caesar and other disabled soldiers prepare for Boston much as theyâ€™ve prepared for other recent racing events. Theyâ€™re sustained in this effort by the Defense Departmentâ€™s Disabled Soldier Support System and other similar organizations that sponsor tours, events and sports for wounded servicemembers.

â€œThereâ€™s a lot out here for us,â€ he said. â€œThereâ€™s so many things out there that we can do and so many clubs we can join.â€

Four 155 mm artillery rounds in a roadside bomb may have taken his leg, but to Caesar it was just part of his job.

â€œIâ€™m a soldier. Thatâ€™s part of my duty,â€ he said. â€œIf I had to do it again, Iâ€™d do it again. When you go over there and you actually see the little kids and the women that live in poverty, helping them makes it all worth it.â€

For more than a year now, disabled soldiers have received continuous support and encouragement from members of the Achilles Track Club. Achilles is a nonprofit organization made up of athletes with varying challenges and ability levels, and has sponsored soldier involvement in a variety of sporting events, including renowned marathons.

The club now has a chapter at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, headed by Mary Bryant, a cancer survivor and former model.

With the support of Achilles coaches and volunteers, veterans learn to walk, jog, and run again. Their rehabilitation objectives are enhanced through physical activity, goal setting and personal achievement.

With the first goal accomplished, for many the second was taking part in the New York City Marathon. Thirty-two Achilles marathoners from Walter Reed registered, and 16 made it for the event. Everyone completed the 26.2-mile distance with Achilles volunteer guides.


----------



## Gurdon

> quote:_Originally posted by pinchi22_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:I have to say that after catrina I have been tempted to aquire a firearm for the home, as well. and, as somebody who didn't grow up here, I may be putting too much faith in the ability of the police to respond.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair point. But what about the tens of thousands of people for whom the police couldnÂ´t respond precisely because they were being fired at by citizens *dutifully bearing automatic machine guns they could have easily bought* in accordance with their cherished consitutional right?
Click to expand...

Except that it isn't easy to legally acquire machine guns.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## In Mufti

I repost my article from earlier today. It makes a few things clear:

1) You don't have to be Mr. Special-Operations-Kung-Fu-Killer-Dude to effectively use a firearm in your defense. People with nominal experience/expertise do it often.

2) 87-year-old-ladies cannot use "other weapons." It's pretty much a gun or get beaten (probably to death at that age).

3) You may never need a gun, but if you do, it will probably be a matter of life or death.

4) Poor people who can't afford gated communities, armed body guards and elaborate alarm systems--often need guns. The police wouldn't have been able to do anything but clean up the mess and open an investigation after they arrived.

5) If she hadn't had the gun, she would have been just another sad statistic.

6) Maybe a gun isn't the answer for everybody--but it was the *only* answer for her.



> quote:_Originally posted by In Mufti_
> 
> From Today's St. Louis Post Dispatch:
> 
> An 87-year-old East St. Louis woman fatally shot a man early this morning as he was trying to break into her house.
> 
> Police said they found the man, Larry D. Tillman, 49, of East St. Louis on the enclosed front porch of the womanâ€™s house in the 2100 block of Gaty Avenue. He had pulled the telephone wires from the side of the house, then removed security bars from a porch window.
> 
> As the man was breaking through a storm door that leads into the house itself, the woman fired several shots through her front door, striking Tillman once in the chest.
> 
> Police said the shots were fired from a pistol, most likely a gun that her daughter had given her after a man broke into the elderly womanâ€™s house in December, battered her and stole some items.
> 
> The man may have been dead for as long as four hours before police arrived. Police said that the woman was not sure that she had hit Tillman when she fired the shots about 2 a.m. However, she was too afraid to go outside to check and could not call for help because the telephone lines were dead.
> 
> When the womanâ€™s daughter arrived about 6 a.m. to bring her mother breakfast, she found the dead man on the porch, police said.
> 
> Illinois State Police Master Sgt. Jim Morrisey said evidence taken from the December home invasion would be compared to the break-in today to see if Tillman was responsible for both crimes.
> 
> Regards,


Regards,


----------



## n/a

> quote:_Originally posted by DougNZ_
> 
> The more I read this thread (which I find a fascinating look into the minds of Americans) the more I am glad I live in the country I do.


I am with you on this, Doug. I have made it clear in past posts that I am no America-basher, yet this whole aspect of America I find deeply disturbing.

Rarely, rarely, comest thou,
Spirit of Delight!
Wherefore hast thou left me now
Many a day and night?
Many a weary night and day
'Tis since thou art fled away.

Percy Bysshe Shelley: _Song_


----------



## jeansguy

God Bless America..one of the last nations on earth to truly understand human rights.

Anywhoooooooo

I think a snub nosed .38 is the ultimate trad weapon. It's gotta be a wheelgun I think to be realy trad.

www.thegenuineman.com


----------



## Rich

> quote:_Originally posted by Jason Evans_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by DougNZ_
> 
> The more I read this thread (which I find a fascinating look into the minds of Americans) the more I am glad I live in the country I do.
> 
> 
> 
> I am with you on this, Doug. I have made it clear in past posts that I am no America-basher, yet this whole aspect of America I find deeply disturbing.
Click to expand...

One more aspect of the US that non-Americans find difficult to understand. I find this forum as a whole an interesting window on the real America. Fascinating reading.


----------



## Fogey

> quote:I am with you on this, Doug. I have made it clear in past posts that I am no America-basher, yet this whole aspect of America I find deeply disturbing.


,

Is Homer trad?


----------



## Étienne

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> By the by, Chicago has a complete firearm ban and has had one for a long time. Any Europeans looking to gauge American attitudes about firearms would not be well-served by going to Chicago.


If you followed the thread, I was not gauging American attitudes about firearms, but American attitudes in general. I was in fact responding to the claim that I knew only (and I quote here) "effete Americans from big, coastal cities". A statement that is not only false but also highly offensive to large parts of the American population.


----------



## DukeGrad

Gentlemen

Globetrotter

I saw your comments.
I understand your point.
I believe, in this type of situation, a firearm is the only recourse.
Simply put, you do not want to maim someone.
If the situation becomes a life threatening event, then the only answer is to use a weapon.
All I am saying, is to allow an individual the chance to make that decision.
That is their right.
When it comes to push and shove, at least the individual had the opportunity to make that decision.

Aus MD, I disagree with your points about firearms in the households.
I have seen the exact case you are discussing.
A very rare event.
I treated a kid with through and through GSW to both legs, femurs.
Father left round in high caliber rifle.
His mistake, he made the wrong decision, he was wrong.

This is a very rare event.
It is not that high, as you state.
It does happen, it is exploited in medical circles, and it is told as you have stated; that it is a common thing to see with household weapons.
Again, it is not as common an event as you stated.
I think it is sad, that people do not understand weapons.
They should know them.
Again, self protection, and the right to bear arms is what we are discussing.

Again, caliber in this situation is somewhat nil.
Any caliber, if used correctly, will do the job.

Gentlemen

Have nice day
To the gym!



Jimmy


----------



## Dr James Ryan

I thought I'd throw up a picture of my 1911s, in celebration of the 6 page thread they inspired:


----------



## DukeGrad

Dr Ryan

Very nice, I have a close relative that works in the Springfield Armory!
LOL

Yes, it is a very political topic, as you can see.
But an enjoyable one at that.

Have a nice day
I need to get to the gym!

Nice day


Jimmy


----------



## Rich

I'm afraid I find this display rather obscene. But I'm working on it.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Relayer_
> 
> My final post in this thread, as we are now down to talking in circles, basically, and professing our love for our country as opposed to others (and nothing wrong with that).
> 
> Globetrotter,
> 
> A man walking toward you at 45 feet away is very unlikely to hit you if he chooses to shoot. Especially if you are on the move, which I would strongly suggest. Your gas poses no threat or deterrent to him. Can you agree with this? Maybe you can hit him if you throw it at him.
> 
> If you say that you could not draw your gun while retreating to some cover, I will acept that. I, however, can. In any case, I have optionsand a chance, you have to hope that you can outrun him. I'm not that fast afoot at 49 years of age. Maybe you have exceptional speed. If not, you can always hope that you can talk him out of pulling the trigger on you. I hope that you can.
> 
> It's been entertaining.
> 
> All the best!


again, we wont convince each other.

1. yes, under a very specific groups of circomstances, a firearm is a better answer than just about anything for personal defence in the home or on the street.

2. it is my believe that the chance of those circomstances happening to you is about as likly as being hit by a meteor. I think that that is pretty well backed up by actual statistics. you disagree, and you feel that your opinion is backed up by statistics.

3. I feel that, due to the low probablity of these circomstances falling into place, and the high "cost" of carrying a firearm or keeping one or more in the house - espectially the cost in terms of accidental life to my household and to the country as a whole, it isn't a rational choice to make in terms of cost/benifit.

4. you believe that the "cost" in terms of unintentional deaths is lower than I believe it to be, and for that, and other reasons, believe that the cost/benifit of keeping a firearm on your person or in your house is a rational and intellegent choice.

5. I don't believe that the vast majoirty of people will operate their firearms anywhere near as well as they believe that they will. Operating a firearm isn't just a matter of shooting at a paper target. and here we get back to your example - the question is - if a man is pointing a firearm at you at 45 feet, will you, in a split second, calculate the distance, decide on a course of action, take a position, draw your weapon and open with effective and lethal fire in the time it takes for him to get you? I don't believe that the vast majority of american gun owners will be able to do that. and here is a major disagreement on our parts.

6. you see the carrying of a firearm by a civillian as somehow showing your love for the country. with the cost of arms to this country in terms of unintentional deaths, I don't see how that works, but that is a disagreement that we will have. this country has many mechanisms for a peron to carry arms in the service of his fellow americans, and in the service of the constitution. I have the right to carry a handgun. I also have the right to stand in front of the whitehouse and call the PResident a pig. I chose to exercise neither, but I value both rights. the fact that niether is excersized doesn't make either weaker.

anyway, we won't convince each other. I hope that you won't have a need to use your firearms, and I hope that you won't have any unintentional results from your firearms, either.


----------



## Briguy

> quote:_Originally posted by Aus_MD_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> I think that, from a purely effectivness point of view, you do better by taking into account what your real needs are, and planning accordiningly.
> 
> I also feel that the risk involved in having firearms around doens't justify the value of having them. you, and many others here, disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Many, many studies show that householders with firearms in USA have higher rates of homicide (as victims) and suicide, than non-owners.
> 
> In other words having a gun in your home makes it more likely that you will grease someone in your family, or they will grease you, or one of you will blow your brains out with your fashion accessory.
> 
> I guess you have to weigh that against the risk that you are going to be the victim of violent crime, but for most middle / upper-middle class Americans that risk is fairly small.
> 
> Aus_MD
Click to expand...

This is not correct. There is no correlation with gun ownership and the liklihood of being a homocide victim. The studies you are referring to were some of the first attempts made at taking a scholarly research approach to the subject of firearms and crime. The author was a researcher named Dr. Kellerman (MD). His studies used a methodology that has since been found to be easily manipulated, and made assumptions that further research has found to be utterly wrong, resulting in a "study" that is now only quoted by supporters of gun control. NO studies conducted after these cites this research, as it is so flawed as to be useless.

Here are some of the things that Dr. K did. First, he selected 8 or so zip codes to use as a representative sample of the US. All of his zip codes were crime riddled, poverty stricken, inner city hell holes. Hardly representative of the nation at large.

Next, he only considered situations where the criminal was killed. We know now that most of the time a firearm is used it is not fired, and when a person is shot, he will die only 1 out of 5 times. Thus, the true number of defensive uses of a firearm in the study was grossely underestimated.

Then, he included suicides by firearm in his calculation of liklihood of a family member being killed. Subsequent studies have demonstrated that the reduction of firearms in society at large does not reduce the suicide rate. It does, however, affect the ways in which people killed themselves. (Canadians switched from firearms to jumping; Brits switched from firearms to carbon monoxied inhalation via their automobiles in closed garages).

Finally, the studies ignored the impact of the stunning crime rates in the zip codes studied. Thus, if a household member was killed by a relative as the result of a drug deal gone bad with that relative, that fact was ignored while the death was attributed to 'gun at home' situation.

The Kellerman studies you cite are, for these reasons, not valid.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:good question. let me put it this way, I do not believe that any of the guys here who carry a handgun has a better answr to your quesiton. if you have a handgun in your holster and somebody is aiming a handgun at you, are you going to outdraw him? sorry, I doubt that very much.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's a quirk of human nature that you will do just fine.
> 
> Want to try it yourself? It's easy:
> 
> * Give your friend a device which can click or make noise. An empty pistol pointed in a safe direction is fine, or a mouse with a click button, anything.
> 
> * Have your friend prepare to click.
> 
> * Now draw and see if you can beat him to the click.
> 
> *Action* time is faster than *reaction* time, and much faster than *reaction plus decision* time.
> 
> I used to perform that "party trick" all the time with a Tanfoglio TZ-85 in a Galco SST (I believe it was an SST) holster. Even when people understood the rules of the game, they couldn't beat me. And I am not an exemplary pistolero - I won a couple of small competitions but I doubt I am the stone cold killer Mr. Globetrotter is.
> 
> By the by, Chicago has a complete firearm ban and has had one for a long time. Any Europeans looking to gauge American attitudes about firearms would not be well-served by going to Chicago. It would be like learning American attitudes about marathon running in an amputee ward.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> "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...

here I chuckle softly - now how about a differnt party game- take three friends, have one stand across the room from you. have the other two stand next to you. put your handgun in the holster. have the friend across the room shoot the one on your left, so that he blood and brain matter is all over you. then have him shoot the one on the right in the theigh, so that he is bleeding all over you, but also screaming. now you have a little bit of smoke in the air, giving that nice realistic smell, you have a little blood on your face, your heart beat is racing and your head is pounding. now have him aim at you and see if you can out draw him.

my belief, which I haven't changed in the past 10 years or so, is that most people can't operate a firearm well, isn't based on the idea that they can't hit a target, or draw fast. I pretty much guarantee you that you can draw faster than me - being as you are an athlete. and, there is a very good chance that you can shoot better than me at a paper target. and, frankly, there is always the chance that you are a natural and would even react better that me to combat. but the vast majority of untrained people can't handle all of the various activities that they need to to be effective in operating a firearm in these type of situations. and, I believe, that puts them at more risk.

so, frankly, I don't think that a person who doesn't really know what he is doing will be able to draw and operate his firearm in a way that will influence the outcome of a conflict. I do, however, think that most people will be able to use less "cool" weapons to influence the outcome of a conflict.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by In Mufti_
> 
> I repost my article from earlier today. It makes a few things clear:
> 
> 1) You don't have to be Mr. Special-Operations-Kung-Fu-Killer-Dude to effectively use a firearm in your defense. People with nominal experience/expertise do it often.
> 
> 2) 87-year-old-ladies cannot use "other weapons." It's pretty much a gun or get beaten (probably to death at that age).
> 
> 3) You may never need a gun, but if you do, it will probably be a matter of life or death.
> 
> 4) Poor people who can't afford gated communities, armed body guards and elaborate alarm systems--often need guns. The police wouldn't have been able to do anything but clean up the mess and open an investigation after they arrived.
> 
> 5) If she hadn't had the gun, she would have been just another sad statistic.
> 
> 6) Maybe a gun isn't the answer for everybody--but it was the *only* answer for her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by In Mufti_
> 
> From Today's St. Louis Post Dispatch:
> 
> An 87-year-old East St. Louis woman fatally shot a man early this morning as he was trying to break into her house.
> 
> Police said they found the man, Larry D. Tillman, 49, of East St. Louis on the enclosed front porch of the womanâ€™s house in the 2100 block of Gaty Avenue. He had pulled the telephone wires from the side of the house, then removed security bars from a porch window.
> 
> As the man was breaking through a storm door that leads into the house itself, the woman fired several shots through her front door, striking Tillman once in the chest.
> 
> Police said the shots were fired from a pistol, most likely a gun that her daughter had given her after a man broke into the elderly womanâ€™s house in December, battered her and stole some items.
> 
> The man may have been dead for as long as four hours before police arrived. Police said that the woman was not sure that she had hit Tillman when she fired the shots about 2 a.m. However, she was too afraid to go outside to check and could not call for help because the telephone lines were dead.
> 
> When the womanâ€™s daughter arrived about 6 a.m. to bring her mother breakfast, she found the dead man on the porch, police said.
> 
> Illinois State Police Master Sgt. Jim Morrisey said evidence taken from the December home invasion would be compared to the break-in today to see if Tillman was responsible for both crimes.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
Click to expand...

actually, in this case I think this is a perfect example of when a person can use a firearm effectivly, and where that may have been her only good option. obviously, this woman couldn't have defended herself with a nightstick or probrably not even with a can of gas, due to her age. she was alone and vulnarable, with nobody nearby to help her, and she lived alone with no kids wich cuts down dramatically on the collatoral risk.

this is a good example.

I have not been saying no one should have a gun, I have been saying that everybody should figure out what the best solution to the risks that they face is. she did, very successfuly.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by DukeGrad_
> 
> Gentlemen
> 
> Globetrotter
> 
> I saw your comments.
> I understand your point.
> I believe, in this type of situation, a firearm is the only recourse.
> Simply put, you do not want to maim someone.
> If the situation becomes a life threatening event, then the only answer is to use a weapon.
> All I am saying, is to allow an individual the chance to make that decision.
> That is their right.
> When it comes to push and shove, at least the individual had the opportunity to make that decision.
> 
> Aus MD, I disagree with your points about firearms in the households.
> I have seen the exact case you are discussing.
> A very rare event.
> I treated a kid with through and through GSW to both legs, femurs.
> Father left round in high caliber rifle.
> His mistake, he made the wrong decision, he was wrong.
> 
> This is a very rare event.
> It is not that high, as you state.
> It does happen, it is exploited in medical circles, and it is told as you have stated; that it is a common thing to see with household weapons.
> Again, it is not as common an event as you stated.
> I think it is sad, that people do not understand weapons.
> They should know them.
> Again, self protection, and the right to bear arms is what we are discussing.
> 
> Again, caliber in this situation is somewhat nil.
> Any caliber, if used correctly, will do the job.
> 
> Gentlemen
> 
> Have nice day
> To the gym!
> 
> Jimmy


jimmy,

I have stated repeatedly that I have no desire to take away the right to keep and bear arms. I feel that, in the vast majoirty of cases, they aren't the correct tool for the need of the person who is doing the keeping and bearing.


----------



## Aus_MD

> quote:_Originally posted by DukeGrad_
> Aus MD, I disagree with your points about firearms in the households.
> I have seen the exact case you are discussing.
> A very rare event.
> I treated a kid with through and through GSW to both legs, femurs.
> Father left round in high caliber rifle.
> His mistake, he made the wrong decision, he was wrong.
> 
> This is a very rare event.
> It is not that high, as you state.
> It does happen, it is exploited in medical circles, and it is told as you have stated; that it is a common thing to see with household weapons.
> Again, it is not as common an event as you stated.
> I think it is sad, that people do not understand weapons.
> They should know them.
> Again, self protection, and the right to bear arms is what we are discussing.
> 
> Jimmy


Jimmy, thanks for your comments. Obviously I was not clear enough, so I will restate my observations. The medical literature comes to a fairly clear conclusion that if there is a firearm in your household you are more likely to die from firearm injuries, either through suicide (most commonly), by accident, or as the victim of a homicide.

The following is a recent and typical abstract from a research paper:



> quote:Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: a national case-control study.
> 
> Wiebe DJ. Ann Emerg Med. 2003 Jun;41(6):771-82.
> 
> Violence Prevention Research Group, University of California-Los Angeles School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA. [email protected]
> 
> STUDY OBJECTIVE: I test the hypothesis that having a gun in the home is a risk factor for adults to be killed (homicide) or to commit suicide. METHODS: Two case-control analyses were based on national samples of subjects 18 years of age or older. Homicide and suicide case subjects were drawn from the 1993 National Mortality Followback Survey. Living control subjects were drawn from the 1994 National Health Interview Survey. Ten control subjects matched by sex, race, and age group were sought for each case subject. RESULTS: The homicide sample consisted of 1,720 case subjects and 8,084 control subjects. Compared with adults in homes with no guns, the adjusted *odds ratio (OR) for homicide was * *1.41 * (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20 to 1.65) for adults with a gun at home and was particularly high among women (adjusted OR 2.72; 95% CI 1.89 to 3.90) compared with men (adjusted OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.49) and among nonwhite subjects (adjusted OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.21) compared with white subjects (adjusted OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56). Further analyses revealed that a gun in the home was a risk factor for homicide by firearm means (adjusted OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.40 to 2.12) but not by nonfirearm means (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.11). The suicide sample consisted of 1,959 case subjects and 13,535 control subjects. *The adjusted OR for suicide was 3.44 * (95% CI 3.06 to 3.86) for persons with a gun at home. However, further analysis revealed that having a firearm in the home was a risk factor for suicide by firearm (adjusted OR 16.89; 95% CI 13.26 to 21.52) but was inversely associated with suicide by other means (adjusted OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.84). CONCLUSION: *Having a gun at home is a risk factor for adults to be shot fatally (gun homicide) or commit suicide with a firearm.* Physicians should continue to discuss with patients the implications of keeping guns at home. Additional studies are warranted to address study limitations and to better understand the implications of firearm ownership.


So this paper states that someone is 1.4 times more likely to become a homicide victim if there is a firearm in the house, and about 3.5 times more likely to commit suicide. You are absolutely correct in saying that homicide in gun owning households is rare, because homicide itself is a relatively rare cause of death.

There are many other research papers that reach the same conclusion, but after a reasonable search I could find no papers that reach the opposite conclusion, i.e. that gun ownership confers longevity. I really don't think that this is "exploited in medical circles", and I can assure you that in my experience any distortion of facts in academic circles is quickly swooped upon by competing academics. There are many in the medical profession who own firearms (a former practice partner was the proud owner of more bespoke Purdey shotguns than I have bespoke suits).

This is a long-winded way of saying that these are the epidemiological facts as I see them, and they are impartial.

Aus_MD


----------



## Aus_MD

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Aus_MD_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> I think that, from a purely effectivness point of view, you do better by taking into account what your real needs are, and planning accordiningly.
> 
> I also feel that the risk involved in having firearms around doens't justify the value of having them. you, and many others here, disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Many, many studies show that householders with firearms in USA have higher rates of homicide (as victims) and suicide, than non-owners.
> 
> In other words having a gun in your home makes it more likely that you will grease someone in your family, or they will grease you, or one of you will blow your brains out with your fashion accessory.
> 
> I guess you have to weigh that against the risk that you are going to be the victim of violent crime, but for most middle / upper-middle class Americans that risk is fairly small.
> 
> Aus_MD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not correct. There is no correlation with gun ownership and the liklihood of being a homocide victim. The studies you are referring to were some of the first attempts made at taking a scholarly research approach to the subject of firearms and crime. The author was a researcher named Dr. Kellerman (MD). His studies used a methodology that has since been found to be easily manipulated, and made assumptions that further research has found to be utterly wrong, resulting in a "study" that is now only quoted by supporters of gun control. NO studies conducted after these cites this research, as it is so flawed as to be useless.
> 
> Here are some of the things that Dr. K did. First, he selected 8 or so zip codes to use as a representative sample of the US. All of his zip codes were crime riddled, poverty stricken, inner city hell holes. Hardly representative of the nation at large.
> 
> Next, he only considered situations where the criminal was killed. We know now that most of the time a firearm is used it is not fired, and when a person is shot, he will die only 1 out of 5 times. Thus, the true number of defensive uses of a firearm in the study was grossely underestimated.
> 
> Then, he included suicides by firearm in his calculation of liklihood of a family member being killed. Subsequent studies have demonstrated that the reduction of firearms in society at large does not reduce the suicide rate. It does, however, affect the ways in which people killed themselves. (Canadians switched from firearms to jumping; Brits switched from firearms to carbon monoxied inhalation via their automobiles in closed garages).
> 
> Finally, the studies ignored the impact of the stunning crime rates in the zip codes studied. Thus, if a household member was killed by a relative as the result of a drug deal gone bad with that relative, that fact was ignored while the death was attributed to 'gun at home' situation.
> 
> The Kellerman studies you cite are, for these reasons, not valid.
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong, and it is improper of you to say that I have referred to something which in fact I have not - please tell me where I cite Kellerman. I have not yet seen the Kellerman study you refer to, and it is arrogant of you to suggest that you have some insight into my sources. It is your post that is "flawed and useless".

If you can formulate a reasoned argument I will debate the issue with you.

Aus_MD


----------



## Briguy

Ok, time for me to fess up. I've been keeping a secret from all of you. While I do carry everywhere it is legal to do so, there is a whole 'nother side of the story...

From time to time, someone I know casually will ask me if I think they should carry a gun, and would I help them learn to shoot. While I often take new shooters to the range, as to carrying, this is how I answer that question.

First, I ask them if they are facing a specific threat (X boyfriend, stalker, etc). The answer is usually no. Ok, then I ask them to recall their last trip to the mall, and to tell me how many store detectives they recall seeing. Invariably, they look at me dumfounded. (I'm testing them to see if they are paying attention to their surroundings, and as store dicks routinely engage in stalking behaviour, if you are paying attention, you will spot these folks regularly.) 

After a few more similar questions, we establish that this person walks around in a fog, oblivious to the world around them. At this point, I suggest that a concealed firearm will never prevent a crime, and will not be very useful if they never see the crime unfolding in front of them. I further suggest that they should start paying attention to their surroundings and carry a can of pepper spray. 

Also, I tell them that they need to never be afraid of offending someone. Your on an elevator and someone shady gets on, get off now! See someone walking toward you on the street that does not look right, cross the street! Amazingly, it is this advice that usually turns the lights on! Every single woman I have told this to looks at me wide eyed, and recounts several times where she was afraid of someone, but did not take action because she might offend them. 

There. I feel better now.


----------



## Briguy

> quote:_Originally posted by Aus_MD_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Aus_MD_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> I think that, from a purely effectivness point of view, you do better by taking into account what your real needs are, and planning accordiningly.
> 
> I also feel that the risk involved in having firearms around doens't justify the value of having them. you, and many others here, disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Many, many studies show that householders with firearms in USA have higher rates of homicide (as victims) and suicide, than non-owners.
> 
> In other words having a gun in your home makes it more likely that you will grease someone in your family, or they will grease you, or one of you will blow your brains out with your fashion accessory.
> 
> I guess you have to weigh that against the risk that you are going to be the victim of violent crime, but for most middle / upper-middle class Americans that risk is fairly small.
> 
> Aus_MD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not correct. There is no correlation with gun ownership and the liklihood of being a homocide victim. The studies you are referring to were some of the first attempts made at taking a scholarly research approach to the subject of firearms and crime. The author was a researcher named Dr. Kellerman (MD). His studies used a methodology that has since been found to be easily manipulated, and made assumptions that further research has found to be utterly wrong, resulting in a "study" that is now only quoted by supporters of gun control. NO studies conducted after these cites this research, as it is so flawed as to be useless.
> 
> Here are some of the things that Dr. K did. First, he selected 8 or so zip codes to use as a representative sample of the US. All of his zip codes were crime riddled, poverty stricken, inner city hell holes. Hardly representative of the nation at large.
> 
> Next, he only considered situations where the criminal was killed. We know now that most of the time a firearm is used it is not fired, and when a person is shot, he will die only 1 out of 5 times. Thus, the true number of defensive uses of a firearm in the study was grossely underestimated.
> 
> Then, he included suicides by firearm in his calculation of liklihood of a family member being killed. Subsequent studies have demonstrated that the reduction of firearms in society at large does not reduce the suicide rate. It does, however, affect the ways in which people killed themselves. (Canadians switched from firearms to jumping; Brits switched from firearms to carbon monoxied inhalation via their automobiles in closed garages).
> 
> Finally, the studies ignored the impact of the stunning crime rates in the zip codes studied. Thus, if a household member was killed by a relative as the result of a drug deal gone bad with that relative, that fact was ignored while the death was attributed to 'gun at home' situation.
> 
> The Kellerman studies you cite are, for these reasons, not valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you are wrong, and it is improper of you to say that I have referred to something which in fact I have not - please tell me where I cite Kellerman. I have not yet seen the Kellerman study you refer to, and it is arrogant of you to suggest that you have some insight into my sources. It is your post that is "flawed and useless".
> 
> If you can formulate a reasoned argument I will debate the issue with you.
> 
> Aus_MD
Click to expand...

Apologies Aus, Kellerman is so often cited when this argument is made that I jumped to conclusions. I had not seen your follow up post with the citation when I posted my reply. I have not read the study you cited, but I will do so.


----------



## FlatSix

> quote:_Originally posted by Aus_MD_
> The following is a recent and typical abstract from a research paper:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: a national case-control study.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> So this paper states that someone is 1.4 times more likely to become a homicide victim if there is a firearm in the house, and about 3.5 times more likely to commit suicide. You are absolutely correct in saying that homicide in gun owning households is rare, because homicide itself is a relatively rare cause of death.
Click to expand...

You know what correlates even better to being a victim of homicide - enough for me to bet money on it?

* Being poor
* Being black or Latino (actually, it looks like black gun owners are really in trouble according to your survey)
* Owning no car newer than ten years old
* Living in Compton

I don't see any regression analysis in that study to take account of the fact that *many people choose to own a gun because they are in greater danger*. That's like saying that people who put bars on their windows are more likely to suffer break-ins. You could "prove" in the same manner.

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

"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


----------



## Aus_MD

*Briguy*, apology accepted. I have no axes to grind in this issue, but formerly had some expertise in the area of gunshot wounds.



> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> You know what correlates even better to being a victim of homicide - enough for me to bet money on it?
> 
> * Being poor
> * Being black or Latino (actually, it looks like black gun owners are really in trouble according to your survey)
> * Owning no car newer than ten years old
> * Living in Compton
> 
> I don't see any regression analysis in that study to take account of the fact that *many people choose to own a gun because they are in greater danger*. That's like saying that people who put bars on their windows are more likely to suffer break-ins. You could "prove" in the same manner.


The purpose of the controls in these studies is to eliminate the effects of confounding factors such as socioeconomic group, race, education etc.

I believe the studies that I looked at are reasonably robust, and I am sure that groups with opposing views do not lack the resources to submerge them if there were significant flaws.

Once again, I have stated the facts as impartially as I can. Ultimately darwinian forces will prove the case one way or another.

Aus_MD


----------



## DukeGrad

Gentlemen

Flat Six, very good points, well appreciated.

AusMD, I agree, and see your point.
Again, I see very low risk, very low.
Compared to ones chance of being mugged, killed, raped, or beaten up.
There are much more of this type of injury in the Er than a household injury due to a weapon in this house.
This is my point.
Again, am in agreement with your point.
My comment again, how often is an injury in the ER to occur, due to a weapon in the home going to happen, as compared to the above I stated.
My situation, was very, very rare.
It does not happen that often.
I do appreciate your point, and yes, do agree with you.

Nice day my friends
Going to the range!




Jimmy


----------



## DukeGrad

Gentlemen

Brig guy, I agree with your statement about this study that Aus MD cites.It is questionable.

I do agree with him though, it is a risk factor, whatever is cited is questionable, as well.
This is my point.

Nice day my friend

Jimmy


----------



## Clovis

> quote:_Originally posted by Dr James Ryan_
> 
> I thought I'd throw up a picture of my 1911s, in celebration of the 6 page thread they inspired:


Do I not see some Baer work in their? Very nice indeed.

Clovis is what Clovis does.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> Ok, time for me to fess up. I've been keeping a secret from all of you. While I do carry everywhere it is legal to do so, there is a whole 'nother side of the story...
> 
> From time to time, someone I know casually will ask me if I think they should carry a gun, and would I help them learn to shoot. While I often take new shooters to the range, as to carrying, this is how I answer that question.
> 
> First, I ask them if they are facing a specific threat (X boyfriend, stalker, etc). The answer is usually no. Ok, then I ask them to recall their last trip to the mall, and to tell me how many store detectives they recall seeing. Invariably, they look at me dumfounded. (I'm testing them to see if they are paying attention to their surroundings, and as store dicks routinely engage in stalking behaviour, if you are paying attention, you will spot these folks regularly.)
> 
> After a few more similar questions, we establish that this person walks around in a fog, oblivious to the world around them. At this point, I suggest that a concealed firearm will never prevent a crime, and will not be very useful if they never see the crime unfolding in front of them. I further suggest that they should start paying attention to their surroundings and carry a can of pepper spray.
> 
> Also, I tell them that they need to never be afraid of offending someone. Your on an elevator and someone shady gets on, get off now! See someone walking toward you on the street that does not look right, cross the street! Amazingly, it is this advice that usually turns the lights on! Every single woman I have told this to looks at me wide eyed, and recounts several times where she was afraid of someone, but did not take action because she might offend them.
> 
> There. I feel better now.


BG,

I think that the bottom line is that we are disagreeing on numbers, not on principal.

I think that, in some cases, carrying a firearm or having one in the house is a good solution. so do you, I think. I believe that, in some cases, non lethal products are better solutions. so do you, I believe.

what we are in disagreement about is where the line goes.


----------



## Rocker

> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> By the by, Chicago has a complete firearm ban and has had one for a long time. Any Europeans looking to gauge American attitudes about firearms would not be well-served by going to Chicago.
> 
> 
> 
> If you followed the thread, I was not gouging American attitudes about firearms, but American attitudes in general.
Click to expand...

Etienne,

You were correct in catching me up on coastal cities reference. Basically, any very large city in America is going to diverge in its opinions from the rest of the country, I suspect. The voting patterns, beleifs, and attitudes of people in Illinois an hour south of Chicago are very different from Chicago itself. When I lived in Iowa - the more populated eastern portion of Iowa is more pro-government than western Iowa. Where I live now, the votes and attitudes of people who live in the city of Atlanta are very different from those outside the city limits and outside certain counties making up the metropolitan area. There is, in fact, a small city 20 minutes from Atlanta called Kennesaw, which has a city ordinance requiring adults to own a firearm (it's broadly worded so that it's not enforced). In short no large American city is indicative of broader American opinion, personality, or values. This is the whole blue state/red state dichotomy. People who live more closely together tend to favor expansive and more powerful governments. My impression is that people who live in cities learn to depend on the government to a far larger extent than those who live in the country or suburbs and their attitudes and values regarding individual autonomy and the role and function of the government are affected by it. If one were to only count the votes of metropolitan areas in the U.S. with a population over 500,000, American politics would look very different. One can't for instance, live in Atlanta, and say much of anything about Georgians as a whole because Atlanta is so mixed up with people from all over the country and is growing so fast, you really learn nothing about Georgia itself - its culture, its people, its politics, its values, etc., by living in Atlanta - drive a couple hours in any direction and one starts to meet real Georgians. I would suspect the same thing applies to Chicago (never been there except for the Airport).


----------



## Étienne

> quote:_Originally posted by Rocker_
> In short no large American city is indicative of broader American opinion, personality, or values.


Rocker, it was actually more the "effete Americans" part of your comment about "effete Americans living in coastal cities" that I found quite offensive to that part of the American population. Anyway, I agree with you that large cities exhibit a very different set of opinions, particularly in America. Some of your formulations are a bit border-line, though, as some of your sentences give the impression that you somehow think the set of values in large cities to be "not the true America".

I was not, however, judging American opinions on the basis of living in a big city. Actually, I did not presume to judge Americans based on my own experience living there. I was merely challenging the broad generalization you made. I really doubt American civilians would behave much differently than most people in the world would America ever be invaded. I don't think they would act differently than, say, the English (see how the English population in the Channel Islands reacted when the Germans invaded) or most populations in Western Europe. This is not only about Americans, by the way. Even if you take the nation reputed to be the most difficult to submit, Japan, I think most people in 1945 were actually deluding themselves when they were picturing Japanese civilians fighting to the last one, and that is despite years of endoctrination to that effect.


----------



## Rocker

> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Rocker_
> In short no large American city is indicative of broader American opinion, personality, or values.
> 
> 
> 
> Rocker, I agree with you that large cities exhibit a very different set of opinions, particularly in America. Some of your formulations are a bit border-line, though, as some of your sentences give the impression that you somehow think the set of values in large cities to be "not the true America".
> 
> I was not judging American opinions on the basis of living in a big city. Actually, I did not presume to judge Americans based on my own experience living there. I was merely challenging the broad generalization you made. I really doubt American civilians would behave much differently than most people in the world would America ever be invaded. I don't think they would act differently than, say, the English (see how the English population in the Channel Islands reacted when the Germans invaded) or most populations in Western Europe. This is not only about Americans, by the way. Even if you take the nation reputed to be the most difficult to submit, Japan, I think most people in 1945 were actually deluding themselves when they were picturing Japanese civilians fighting to the last one, and that is despite years of endoctrination to that effect.
Click to expand...

We will have to agree to disagree. You may remember however, that in 1861, when one part of America ivaded the other, it ended up costing over 600,000 lives in a nation of 30 million; Especailly on the Southern side, most of these men were self-armed and this wasn't even a true "foreign invasion." Significantly less so today than in the 1940s, there remains a fairly radical and militant sense of individualism in the U.S. - particulalry in the South and West. The Japanese in the 1940s did not have a highly developed sense of individualism or autonomy or freedom and as MacArthur knew - they did what they were told; it was a very hierarchical society where obedience was one of the most fundamental values. The Janaese submitted because their leadership submitted - they did what they were told. America has no such culture - Americans, to some extent, value disobedience. To analogize Americans and Japanese of the 1940s is highly misguided.

Channel Islands were so small - there was no real hope of effective resistance. I don't think that is any indication of what the British would have done if Great Britain had been invaded and, in any case, the Birish are not American.

You're right, by and large, I do not think the majority of inhabitants of large cities in America evidence what I would consider to be classic American beliefs or values. For instance, I think rent control is antithetical to traditional American beliefs about open markets and freedom of contract; and I've said, I think urban populations tend to view government more favorably (since they're subsidizing rents, mass transit,sewage & waste, etc.) and I think the more traditional American view of government (and the one indicated by the federal consititution) is one of scepticism and of seeking to limit its power; and while our large cities attract some of our best and brightest, they also disproportinately attract our most indolent as well becasue most large cities will subsidize sloth, degeneracy, and anti-social behavior as well through relatively generous redistributionist programs. Hence cities develop a type of person who is largely incapable or unwilling to take care of himself or exercise any initiative. So, for instance, 5 months after Katrina, all over the nation there were still tens of thousands of people from New Orleans still living in governement paid for hotels - not doing much of anyting to look for jobs, rebuild, or to take much intiative to do anything to rebuild their lives.


----------



## DukeGrad

Etienne,

Very good points about US cities, you are correct in my opinion.
You referencing Japan very applaudable, my friend.
Your comment about US citizens, and how they would behave, if this were to happen to them is correct as well.
We would do the very same, as England, France and so forth.

Very good points

Jimmy


----------



## Rocker

> quote:_Originally posted by DukeGrad_
> 
> Etienne,
> 
> Very good points about US cities, you are correct in my opinion.
> You referencing Japan very applaudable, my friend.
> Your comment about US citizens, and how they would behave, if this were to happen to them is correct as well.
> We would do the very same, as England, France and so forth.
> 
> Very good points
> 
> Jimmy


DukeGrad, I'm surprised to hear you say this - very. I'll adhere to Abrham Lincoln's opinion on the subject "No foreign power or combination of foreign powers could by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up from among us, it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die of suicide." Anymore than America or Americans are like Europeans today - they were even less like them in the '40s. I again would argue that any invasion of the U.S. with its armed population would result in massive guerilla warfare bleeding an enemy dry (a thousand uprisings throughout the nation). The "Old West" having only "closed" 40 years before, mllions of armed WWI veterans, tens of millions of armed American citizens and you think we would have just grabbed our ankles and taken it from a foreign invader? I really don't think so.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Rocker_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by DukeGrad_
> 
> Etienne,
> 
> Very good points about US cities, you are correct in my opinion.
> You referencing Japan very applaudable, my friend.
> Your comment about US citizens, and how they would behave, if this were to happen to them is correct as well.
> We would do the very same, as England, France and so forth.
> 
> Very good points
> 
> Jimmy
> 
> 
> 
> DukeGrad, I'm surprised to hear you say this - very. I'll adhere to Abrham Lincoln's opinion on the subject "No foreign power or combination of foreign powers could by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up from among us, it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die of suicide." Anymore than America or Americans are like Europeans today - they were even less like them in the '40s. I again would argue that any invasion of the U.S. with its armed population would result in massive guerilla warfare bleeding an enemy dry (a thousand uprisings throughout the nation). The "Old West" having only "closed" 40 years before, mllions of armed WWI veterans, tens of millions of armed American citizens and you think we would have just grabbed our ankles and taken it from a foreign invader? I really don't think so.
Click to expand...

rocker, I am torn about this - I think that you have a point, but I also think that a bunch of guys with pretty guns isn't going to do much good a real army. the biggest trouble now is that you don't have the large participation in the military that you had in the past. if the US were invaded in the 50's, you would have had huge numbers of vetrans, living in their communities, out in organized force. you have that a lot less now. what you would have would be hundreds of thousands of men, working as individuals, who have no military expereince and 12 engraved 1911 colt .45's, trying to stop an organized military.

just to give you an example as to how things work in israel or in switerland (which was the basis for the model in use in israel)- you have people who spent time in a standing army and then in the reserves, who have organized units to fall back to in the event of a government overthrow or invasion. in some cases they have military weapons at home, in some cases they have access to stores of company weapons - anti tank rockets, chain fed maching guns, mortars, sniper rifles, that are stored in armories near their homes.


----------



## FlatSix

> quote:_Originally posted by Aus_MD_
> The purpose of the controls in these studies is to eliminate the effects of confounding factors such as socioeconomic group, race, education etc.


Whoooooooa... Don't get sloppy on me.

To begin with, your survey specifically states that



> quote:Ten control subjects matched by sex, race, and age group were sought for each case subject.


Were they matched by geographic location? Income? No - or the documentation would list those controls. Is a non-gun-owner living in Watts at significantly higher risk than a gun owner in Beverly Hills? Of course. This is statistical cherrypicking.

Now for the "Damn, It Be Dangerous To Be A Brother" part of your report:



> quote:among nonwhite subjects (adjusted OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.21) compared with white subjects (adjusted OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56)


So your average cracker is only 27 percent more likely to be killed if he owns a gun, but the average African-American is *74% more likely to be!* Why is that? I have a couple African-American friends in my neighborhood ('hood, if you will) who are avid shooters. Is there anybody here who thinks that they are magically half again as likely to be killed as I am because of some genetic factor, the minute they pick up a gun? Of course not. Something's rotten here in Denmark.

And the last wonderful part of the survey - *Guns Protect You From Non-Gun Crime!*



> quote:Further analyses revealed that a gun in the home was... not (a risk factor) by nonfirearm means (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.11).


Wait a minute! You mean that by having a gun in the house, I am *seventeen percent less likely to be beaten to death, stabbed, or molested by a goat? Sign me up!*

Don't even get me started on the wide CIs which indicate a strong possibility that you are only *one percent on the average more likely to be killed by a firearm if you have a firearm in the house*. Factor in the higher personal risk which makes people likely to have a firearm in the first place, and this survey falls apart.

So, to review the highly suspect conclusions of this survey:

* Black people love to shoot each other. In fact, they just can't wait to shoot each other. Just holding a firearm in your hand, if you are black, will probably cause someone to shoot you. (Probably a cop!)
* If you have a gun in the house, and you commit suicide, you are more likely to use the gun. This surprises exactly no one.
* The whole sample size is about 10,000 people. No wonder the confidence levels are so broad.

FlatSix's conclusion: *Racist, politically motivated garbage from an organization whose sole purpose, based on my review of their documentation, is to advance the policy of firearm confiscation in this country.*

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

"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:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> rocker, I am torn about this - I think that you have a point, but I also think that a bunch of guys with pretty guns isn't going to do much good a real army.


Must be why the Vietnam War and Iraqi Peace are going so well for us, eh?



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

"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


----------



## Étienne

> quote:_Originally posted by Rocker_
> you think we would have just grabbed our ankles and taken it from a foreign invader? I really don't think so.


Once again, I think you are making very broad - and false - generalizations here. I said American civilians would not react differently than most civilians from other countries have reacted, in case of a foreign invasion. That does not mean doing nothing. In case you have forgotten, most occupied countries in Europe had an effective guerrilla movement during WWII (France, Poland, occupied Russia, Serbia...). Hardly "grabbing your ankles and taking it from the invader" here.

But, and that is where we differ, such guerrilla movements only occur with foreign logistical support and only concern a minority of the population. Most civilians are no fighters, that is true even in the most militaristic societies (such as Japans in the 40's). That is, in my opinion, what would happen in America as well in case of such an occurence, with or without a large portion of the population keeping handguns (a very poor military or guerilla tool, by the way).

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Just a small side remark on the subject of "true American values" not being the ones found in large cities. A fairly large proportion of the American population (more than half I think, but I have no data) lives in such cities. I think the numbers should matter when you decide which opinions are "truly American" and which are not.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> rocker, I am torn about this - I think that you have a point, but I also think that a bunch of guys with pretty guns isn't going to do much good a real army.
> 
> 
> 
> Must be why the Vietnam War and Iraqi Peace are going so well for us, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> "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...

which takes me back to my origional posts on the subject of firearms - the AK-47 is a fantastic tool for its job. and, sorry to say this, I think that both the viet cong and the typcial iraqi resistor are a hell of a lot tougher than the average american that I see hanging out at the mall. and, at least in iraq, better trained.

if the majority of americans were willing to be trained well, and were choosing the right tool for the job at hand, then I would have no problem at all with firearms for a few reasons. first, because people would be safer with them, and second because most people wouldn't choose them as the tool of choice, if they were trained and looking for the best tool for the job.


----------



## Rocker

> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> Just a small side remark on the subject of "true American values" not being the ones found in large cities. A fairly large proportion of the American population (more than half I think, but I have no data) lives in such cities. I think the numbers should matter when you decide which opinions are "truly American" and which are not.


I don't think I ever wrote "true American values," I wrote "traditional" or "classic" American Values - there is a difference. I understand that there are value differences in America - none of which are "true" or can be. And what I meant were values of individualism and personal responsibility that existed prior to the advent of the welfare state in America. And I would think a very large percentage of the population would strongly like a Government that seems to take from the "rich" and hand out "free stuff" or that would seek to protect a person from the consequences of his/her own stupid, self-destructive, lazy, self-indulgent, etc. behavior - as George Bernard Shaw stated "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." But, still, most Americans tend not to favor a strong welfare state while it seems to be more desired in large cities.


----------



## FlatSix

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_which takes me back to my origional posts on the subject of firearms - the AK-47 is a fantastic tool for its job. and, sorry to say this, I think that both the viet cong and the typcial iraqi resistor are a hell of a lot tougher than the average american that I see hanging out at the mall. and, at least in iraq, better trained.


It's increasingly obvious in these posts that you are operating from deeper motives than simple concern about individual safety - namely a deep contempt for, or even hatred of, the average American "at the mall" and a belief that you are vastly superior to them thanks to your combat training and experience. Perhaps you are correct, but the average American hick has historically demonstrated quite an ability to surprise his detractors.

Accepting for a moment that the IDF is the best-trained infantry force in the world - which is probably close to the truth - I feel confident in saying that they would find the Florida Glades, or the hills of Kentucky, to be more than too much for them.

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

"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


----------



## JBZ

In reading the remainder of the thread, a few things:

- Briguy - I'm terribly sorry to hear about your wife and your friend. Those are awful things to have happened. I still question whether a handgun would have helped in either situation, however. Every situation is different, of course, and there's no way for me to know without knowing the specifics of the incidents.

- I agree with the poster who said that children should be taught to respect firearms. I also think that the use of firearms at a gun range can be a terrific hobby. I always liked shooting. When they reach the proper age, if my sons express an interest, I will be happy to teach them about firearm safety and shooting and to have them attend professionally taught classes regarding the same thing. This doesn't change my views about having a gun in the house (which, if stored the proper way, provides dubious protection at best, IMHO). If either of my sons expresses a strong interest in shooting, we may purchase a gun. However, this would only occur once, in my judgment, both my sons had the maturity to deal with the reality of a gun in the house.

- As for using a handgun to bring down large game, good luck with that. There are three large mammals that are indigenous to the continental United States which might interact in a violent, unprovoked manner toward people - Black Bears, Grizzly Bears, and Mountain Lions (if you include Alaska, you also have Brown Bears and Kodiak Bears on Kodiak Island). I don't count Moose and Bison, because generally a fair amount of provocation is necessary to get either one of these animals to attempt to inflict injury (and you'd have no better luck with a handgun here, either). It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to bring down a Black Bear or a Grizzly Bear with a handgun, even one with the stopping power of a .44 Magnum, unless you're such a good shot and so cool under pressure that you can put one in a charging bear's eye - note that they can run as fast as horses over short distances. A much more high powered weapon is generally necessary (a very high powered rifle or a 12 gauge loaded with slugs would be your best bet). You might have better luck with a handgun against a Mountain Lion, but, by the time you saw the attacking lion, if you're really quick, you might actually clear your holster. Your true best bet with regard to large fauna is to make yourself undesirable in the first place - wear bear bells; blow an air horn from time to time; make other noise while hiking; don't cook and sleep in the same clothes; and store your food far from camp and suspended from a tree where a bear can't reach it; if you encounter a bear or lion, look for a way out rather than becoming aggressive if at all possible.

As I said in my first post, I believe people should have the right to keep and bear arms. However, I'd be much more comfortable with mandatory safety training, and I question how much benefit the handgun gives the average citizen in the first place.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_which takes me back to my origional posts on the subject of firearms - the AK-47 is a fantastic tool for its job. and, sorry to say this, I think that both the viet cong and the typcial iraqi resistor are a hell of a lot tougher than the average american that I see hanging out at the mall. and, at least in iraq, better trained.
> 
> 
> 
> It's increasingly obvious in these posts that you are operating from deeper motives than simple concern about individual safety - namely a deep contempt for, or even hatred of, the average American "at the mall" and a belief that you are vastly superior to them thanks to your combat training and experience. Perhaps you are correct, but the average American hick has historically demonstrated quite an ability to surprise his detractors.
> 
> Accepting for a moment that the IDF is the best-trained infantry force in the world - which is probably close to the truth - I feel confident in saying that they would find the Florida Glades, or the hills of Kentucky, to be more than too much for them.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> "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...

FS - that really is the farthest thing from the truth, and I sincerly do appologize if that is what you understood. I think that you either read too much into my posts, or dont' read the whole way through.

let me start over - I did say that I was torn about my belief in this rhetorical question: part of me would believe that the individualistic drive and the stored up arsinals of firepower would prove to be useful, part of me thinking that too few americans serve int he military, too many move around a lot, and too many young people have been losing their outdoor skills over the past generation or two and that would greatly effect the outcome of this. the advantages of the iraqi resistance are in their sense of community, their toughness, and in the high quality of the arms that they have. all of these are things that are lacking in america today.

as to toughness - there is a problem in america - people are less tough than they used to be. sorry, I will stand by the idea that your typical iraqi in the resistance, and your typical viet cong is going to be a hell of a lot tougher than your typical american. mostly because life is a hell of a lot tougher there.

I am not placing myself superior to the average american. believe it or not, the skills that I picked up 20 years ago do me little or no good in my day to day (although I find that alot of the organizational skills that I picked up in the army, espectially breifing and de-briefing, are very usefull). you and I have mostly found ourselves in discussions about something that I happen to know a lot about, and you less. were we to discuss bikes or cars, we would have the same imbalance of knowledge. I think that part of the problem you feel, is that you assosiate this whole issue with a manhood issue - you seem to feel that if I am suggesting that I know more about this than you, that that makes me somehow superior to you. the only reason that I even raised the issue of my background and training was because these discussions always bring up the issue of credibility - and people always assume that if you don't think everyone should have 12 engraved .45's, you are a commie and a homosexual who is scared of guns.

the IDF may be the best trained infantry in the world, certainly in a few areas. it may not be. units of the US infantry and light infantry are exceptionally well trained, as are units of many other militaries of the world. and yes, I imagine that the IDF would have trouble in the swamps of florida and in the hills of tennasee, although the possible scenario that would bring the IDF to either eludes me.

again, FS, it comes down to a few simple issue -

1. I don't think that most people are capable of using a firearm to influence a likely conflict in their favor. not because they are idiots, and not because I think that they can't hit a paper target in the middle of the day well, but because I don't think that they will be able to both store the weapon safly and also put their hands on the weapon when it is needed and operate it with a clear head in the circomstances most likly to be needed.

2. I think that the cost/benifit analysis of keeping firearms around the house and accecible does not justify it - it seems that the overwhellming evidence points to the fact that those weapons will not help you but will end up hurting somebody

3. I think that most people do not do a proper threat analysis as to what threats they should be preparing for, they do not prepare corrctly, they do not train correctly, and they believe that they do.

4. I think that, for the vast majoirty of the threats faced, the best solution would not be a firearm. I would remind you that I posted soemthing on this a few months ago, where I saw an article on recomendations by 4 security consultants, 2 from the secret service 2 were NYPD vets, one of which was the ex chief of NYPD where all 4 suggested against keeping a firearm in the house, 3 didn't have firearms, and 2 had nightsticks.

5. on a personal basis, I do find it distasteful when people treat guns as jewlery or collectibles. in, pretty much the same way that I feel about adults wearing cowboy clothes.


----------



## DukeGrad

Gentlemen

Flatsix, you are on a roll.

Rocker, why surprised?
Because of my profession?
My true profession, even in a retired state, is that of a " Soldier"
I truly believe this.
I am one of many soldiers, who feel this way.
Especially in retirement.
I am proud to represent my country, very proud.

On the other hand, a human is a human is a human.
My experiences and feelings about weapons is a learned experience.
I have been at both ends of the circle.
I have been robbed, mugged in my retired life.
I happen to be one who has been there.
I have always loved shooting and hunting.
I now carry a nicely packed Sig 40 cal. when I go in harms way.
I am forthright, when I say, I will shoot first.
I know better.
This is my right.
I am saying that an individual, has this right to protect themself.
I am a caring, compassionate father.
I tried to teach my kids shooting, my son and daughter hate guns!
I am livid at the schools today in this world, what are they teaching there?
LOL
I am kidding my friend, but my children and my wife hate guns.
God bless them, I will be the one shooting.

I apologize if I swayed your thoughts about me.
I happen to be a retired soldier, who is a shooter, who has been there, both sides of the coin. Yes, I practice medicine, this has nothing to do with this discussion.
This is why I feel so strongly about the right to bear arms.

Gentlemen

I have been to Israel, and you cant correalate between there, and here.
Totally different mindset.
I agree with the way things are done there, that is simple, the location of Israel dictates why everyone soldiers.
I can not see where one can compare one country to another.
I have been to Europe, and worked and served with my dear British friends.
A soldier, there my friends, thinks differently, when it comes to protecting oneself and country.
I dont think it will add anything to this topic, which I believe is: " What is the best dress for your handgun?"

LOL

Nice day my friends

Jimmy


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_which takes me back to my origional posts on the subject of firearms - the AK-47 is a fantastic tool for its job. and, sorry to say this, I think that both the viet cong and the typcial iraqi resistor are a hell of a lot tougher than the average american that I see hanging out at the mall. and, at least in iraq, better trained.
> 
> 
> 
> It's increasingly obvious in these posts that you are operating from deeper motives than simple concern about individual safety - namely a deep contempt for, or even hatred of, the average American "at the mall" and a belief that you are vastly superior to them thanks to your combat training and experience. Perhaps you are correct, but the average American hick has historically demonstrated quite an ability to surprise his detractors.
> 
> Accepting for a moment that the IDF is the best-trained infantry force in the world - which is probably close to the truth - I feel confident in saying that they would find the Florida Glades, or the hills of Kentucky, to be more than too much for them.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> "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...
> 
> FS - that really is the farthest thing from the truth, and I sincerly do appologize if that is what you understood. I think that you either read too much into my posts, or dont' read the whole way through.
> 
> let me start over - I did say that I was torn about my belief in this rhetorical question: part of me would believe that the individualistic drive and the stored up arsinals of firepower would prove to be useful, part of me thinking that too few americans serve int he military, too many move around a lot, and too many young people have been losing their outdoor skills over the past generation or two and that would greatly effect the outcome of this. the advantages of the iraqi resistance are in their sense of community, their toughness, and in the high quality of the arms that they have. all of these are things that are lacking in america today.
> 
> as to toughness - there is a problem in america - people are less tough than they used to be. sorry, I will stand by the idea that your typical iraqi in the resistance, and your typical viet cong is going to be a hell of a lot tougher than your typical american. mostly because life is a hell of a lot tougher there.
> 
> I am not placing myself superior to the average american. believe it or not, the skills that I picked up 20 years ago do me little or no good in my day to day (although I find that alot of the organizational skills that I picked up in the army, espectially breifing and de-briefing, are very usefull). you and I have mostly found ourselves in discussions about something that I happen to know a lot about, and you less. were we to discuss bikes or cars, we would have the same imbalance of knowledge. I think that part of the problem you feel, is that you assosiate this whole issue with a manhood issue - you seem to feel that if I am suggesting that I know more about this than you, that that makes me somehow superior to you. the only reason that I even raised the issue of my background and training was because these discussions always bring up the issue of credibility - and people always assume that if you don't think everyone should have 12 engraved .45's, you are a commie and a homosexual who is scared of guns.
> 
> the IDF may be the best trained infantry in the world, certainly in a few areas. it may not be. units of the US infantry and light infantry are exceptionally well trained, as are units of many other militaries of the world. and yes, I imagine that the IDF would have trouble in the swamps of florida and in the hills of tennasee, although the possible scenario that would bring the IDF to either eludes me.
> 
> again, FS, it comes down to a few simple issue -
> 
> 1. I don't think that most people are capable of using a firearm to influence a likely conflict in their favor. not because they are idiots, and not because I think that they can't hit a paper target in the middle of the day well, but because I don't think that they will be able to both store the weapon safly and also put their hands on the weapon when it is needed and operate it with a clear head in the circomstances most likly to be needed.
> 
> 2. I think that the cost/benifit analysis of keeping firearms around the house and accecible does not justify it - it seems that the overwhellming evidence points to the fact that those weapons will not help you but will end up hurting somebody
> 
> 3. I think that most people do not do a proper threat analysis as to what threats they should be preparing for, they do not prepare corrctly, they do not train correctly, and they believe that they do.
> 
> 4. I think that, for the vast majoirty of the threats faced, the best solution would not be a firearm. I would remind you that I posted soemthing on this a few months ago, where I saw an article on recomendations by 4 security consultants, 2 from the secret service 2 were NYPD vets, one of which was the ex chief of NYPD where all 4 suggested against keeping a firearm in the house, 3 didn't have firearms, and 2 had nightsticks.
> 
> 5. on a personal basis, I do find it distasteful when people treat guns as jewlery or collectibles. in, pretty much the same way that I feel about adults wearing cowboy clothes.
> 
> 6. I in no way suggest that I should have a firearm around my hosue for protection, and you shouldn't. I don't have one, because I don't think that I can both store it safly and access it in a timely manner in able to influence a conflict. I also don't suggest that Israelis should have guns and Americans shouldn't - although I think that the ISraeli system is much better: it should be difficult to get a firearm, you should have only one, it should get taken away from you if you don't train with it, and you should be responsible for any crimes commited with it, should you lose it or if it is stolen. No Israeli would think of a firearm as a form of security from a mugger or burglar, in mu opinion, but that really isn't relevant to our discussion.
Click to expand...


----------



## DougNZ

> quote:So, for instance, 5 months after Katrina, all over the nation there were still tens of thousands of people from New Orleans still living in governement paid for hotels - not doing much of anyting to look for jobs, rebuild, or to take much intiative to do anything to rebuild their lives.


Way off topic, but I have got to call Rocker on his arrogance here.

From what I saw of the aftermath of Katrina - which is probably similar to what you saw - much of the area was flattened or under water, or both. Infrastructure was poor or non-existant, and many people had lost everything. When you have no money, no home, no possessions, only the clothes on your back, are likely heavily depressed, and all around you is the same misery, how exactly do you spring up, get a job, get a life and stop being a burden to society?


----------



## Rich

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> It's increasingly obvious in these posts that you are operating from deeper motives than simple concern about individual safety - namely a deep contempt for, or even hatred of, the average American "at the mall" and a belief that you are vastly superior to them thanks to your combat training and experience. Perhaps you are correct, but the average American hick has historically demonstrated quite an ability to surprise his detractors.


Whatever may or may not be globetrotter's motives, there's not a single argument in this thread that proves him wrong. He evidently has first-hand knowledge of mankind's dark side, and the need to control it. Some years ago when the availability of handguns was being debated in the UK a number of professional military instructors advanced very similar arguments to globetrotter's. They too were well aware of the dangerous fascination guns (and gunmen) have for many people. It may be politically expedient to support gun ownership in the US. It swung the other way in the UK.


----------



## DukeGrad

Gentlemen

DougNZ

Very good points about Catrina, and what an individual goes through.
I do not think there were long lines at Wendys or McD, looking for jobs here.

Rich, I understand your points regarding mankind, a dark side.
But I do not think you can label, "Mankind", so to say.
I think it is an individual entity.
Myself, very different person from anyone else.
This is genetically and personality driven.
When you mix up a group of me, you get Bi Polar!
LOL

Have a nice day my friends.
Off to the range again!
Kidding




Jimmy


----------



## pendennis

> quote:_Originally posted by DougNZ_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:So, for instance, 5 months after Katrina, all over the nation there were still tens of thousands of people from New Orleans still living in governement paid for hotels - not doing much of anyting to look for jobs, rebuild, or to take much intiative to do anything to rebuild their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> Way off topic, but I have got to call Rocker on his arrogance here.
> 
> From what I saw of the aftermath of Katrina - which is probably similar to what you saw - much of the area was flattened or under water, or both. Infrastructure was poor or non-existant, and many people had lost everything. When you have no money, no home, no possessions, only the clothes on your back, are likely heavily depressed, and all around you is the same misery, how exactly do you spring up, get a job, get a life and stop being a burden to society?
Click to expand...

Doug, this is a very astute observation. Disasters such as Katrina, or the tsunami in east Asia last year, are psychologically devestating. Even with massive infusions of government and private aid, it's very damaging to the human psyche. The damage in human terms will have life-long effects on people who are affected.

In the 1930's, as the Great Depression set in, there were similar reactions by men who had never known unemployment; and women, who as matriarchs of their households, had never seen young children hungry, or without adequate clothing. Contrary to popular belief unemployment didn't go from a small percentage to over 25% in 1929. In many instances the Great Depression was more insidious. People could see it coming, were helpless to do anything, but the agony of losing ones livelihood and home took, in some instances, more than six years.

The only difference between Katrina, the tsunami of 2005, and the Great Depression, was the relative speed of the effect on surviving populations.

Franklin Roosevelt, for all of his "New Deal" programs, never solved the problem of the Depression. Unemployment in the United States at the end of 1940 was still over 15%. It wasn't until the U.S. and our allies ratcheted up production to supply the war, and men were mass-inducted into the military, that the depression ended.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## Rocker

> quote:_Originally posted by DougNZ_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:So, for instance, 5 months after Katrina, all over the nation there were still tens of thousands of people from New Orleans still living in governement paid for hotels - not doing much of anyting to look for jobs, rebuild, or to take much intiative to do anything to rebuild their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> Way off topic, but I have got to call Rocker on his arrogance here.
> 
> From what I saw of the aftermath of Katrina - which is probably similar to what you saw - much of the area was flattened or under water, or both. Infrastructure was poor or non-existant, and many people had lost everything. When you have no money, no home, no possessions, only the clothes on your back, are likely heavily depressed, and all around you is the same misery, how exactly do you spring up, get a job, get a life and stop being a burden to society?
Click to expand...

Well, we have approximately 100,000 who were moved here to Atlanta. There's at least another 100,000 in Houston - it's not like they're still in New Orleans so, get your facts straight. Thy're not surrounded by misery. In a huge number of cases, they're out of a rat-hole and in areas/cities in which, for the first time in their lives, where they may actually have an opportunity to improve themselves instead of being trapped in the New Olreans poverty cycle. There are plenty of jobs and plenty opportunity here - unemployment is around 4.4%. If, as you've characterized, they "have have no money, no home, no possessions, only the clothes on [their]backs," they have the perfect opportunity to begin again, find a job, and get on with life. If you were completely wiped out, how many months would you sit on your ass before you finally got motivated to take care of yourself and your family? I know of people who opened their homes to storm vitims and had the victims complain of the food.

It's only arrogance, if I haven't been in a similar position as they are in and I have been. Five months is plenty of time, to START rebuilding your life - find a job, find an aprtment, start moving forward. Instead, we had lawsuits forcing FEMA to continue to pay for tens of thousands of hotel rooms (apparently, that now is a civil right in the U.S.).

I've known people who've been flooded out by the Missouri, wiped uut by tornadoes, and yes, I know people who have lost their homes in Katrina - I don't know anyone, personally, who has been stuck in lethargy as a result. They're usually pretty anxious to re-build or move-on.


----------



## Kav

&lt;SIGH&gt; the internet,printed periodicals, shooting facilities etc. have all these same, shopworn,stale and ultimately meaningless anecdotes, statistics, historical references, ephemeral ballistic arguments and constitutional interpretations AD NAUSEUM.I'v owned 5 1911s in my time. WOOWEE! seeing another one is about as exciting as chickenhawks who glance over into your urinal or mid life crisis males in red corvettes. A truly trad gentleman no more displays or discusses a personal firearm as he would the family fortune. Both possessions are to serve, and do so best discretely and without attention.I am inspired by this thread to improve my own finances by submitted some fresh articles to Jan's concern. What do you think? .22LR- most usefull cartridge, .30-06- everyman's round, .45 vs 9 MM and finally, the dirty .30- worlds greatest deer cartidge.


----------



## DougNZ

> quote:If you were completely wiped out, how many months would you sit on your ass before you finally got motivated to take care of yourself and your family?


I really do not know and, God willing, hope I never have to find out. In saying that, I have a pretty strong internal locus of control, and presume I would be motivated to get up and rebuild.

That leads me to another point: I would guess that the friends you cite as having experienced terrible tragedies are, like you, educated and with various levels of self-belief. I would suggest, based on the television reports we saw of the Katrina survivors, that many had not the life experiences that you and I have enjoyed, and have not the resources to even know where to begin to start over. For many, having the confidence to look for a job (especially if they have been previously unemployed), interviewing successfully and holding the job may be significant hurdles.

I hear what you are saying, Rocker, and I also have trouble accepting "sloth, degeneracy, and anti-social behavior", as you put it. However, it very unlikely that we can truely empathise with them sitting in front of our computers talking about such whimsical things as peak lapel dinner jackets and pretty guns.


----------



## Rocker

> quote:_Originally posted by DougNZ_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:If you were completely wiped out, how many months would you sit on your ass before you finally got motivated to take care of yourself and your family?
> 
> 
> 
> I really do not know and, God willing, hope I never have to find out. In saying that, I have a pretty strong internal locus of control, and presume I would be motivated to get up and rebuild.
> 
> That leads me to another point: I would guess that the friends you cite as having experienced terrible tragedies are, like you, educated and with various levels of self-belief. I would suggest, based on the television reports we saw of the Katrina survivors, that many had not the life experiences that you and I have enjoyed, and have not the resources to even know where to begin to start over. For many, having the confidence to look for a job (especially if they have been previously unemployed), interviewing successfully and holding the job may be significant hurdles.
> 
> I hear what you are saying, Rocker, and I also have trouble accepting "sloth, degeneracy, and anti-social behavior", as you put it. However, it very unlikely that we can truely empathise with them sitting in front of our computers talking about such whimsical things as peak lapel dinner jackets and pretty guns.
Click to expand...

DougNZ,

Yes, you are right - I do have my education and so, I'm probably better off. I do have sympathy for them - but, not unlimited; a large number of these people have had so much "compassion" given to them by the government throughout their lives that they've been excused from being productive members of society and have been allowed to waste away to such an extent that, they may well not have job skills. Still, the biggest job skill is merely showing up on time to work on a continuous basis. Illegals aliens in the U.S. seem to be able to find work readily without a lot of skills one might think necessary. Hard-work and drive still mean something here. I cited New Orlean and Katrina becasue it demonstrated the kind of loss of motivation, individual initiative, drive, etc. that I think one finds in U.S. large urban populations - that was the premise of the original discussion - that I did not think cities were a good place to get a "feel" for America or for Americans.


----------



## DougNZ

Getting back to your earlier post, Rocker, it seems you were distinguishing between urban USA and "rural" USA in terms of attitudes. When I grew up in the country, I was in awe at all the bright lights, exciting activities and sophistication of the townies. Now I live in town, everyone with some money wants to buy 10 acres, have some sheep and grow their own potatoes.

My oldest boys are ten next month. My wife won't let them pushbike the 2km to school and can barely watch if I take them to the river for a swim. She's not alone, in the cities. At their age, I had my own motorbike and rode 5 miles to do my chores each day, could drive a tractor, Landrover, manual car and ride a horse, went off on my own with a .22 to shoot rabbits, and went camping with my mates in some pretty remote country. Quite simply, country folk are brought up to be so much more self-sufficient and become very motivated at fixing problems as a necessity of life. In town, we tend to rely on a plastic card with a magnetic strip for any hiccups in life.


----------



## Aus_MD

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Aus_MD_
> The purpose of the controls in these studies is to eliminate the effects of confounding factors such as socioeconomic group, race, education etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Whoooooooa... Don't get sloppy on me.
> 
> To begin with, your survey specifically states that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:Ten control subjects matched by sex, race, and age group were sought for each case subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were they matched by geographic location? Income? No - or the documentation would list those controls. Is a non-gun-owner living in Watts at significantly higher risk than a gun owner in Beverly Hills? Of course. This is statistical cherrypicking.
> 
> Now for the "Damn, It Be Dangerous To Be A Brother" part of your report:
> The purpose of the controls in these studies is to eliminate the effects of confounding factors such as socioeconomic group, race, education etc.[/
> 
> 
> 
> quote:among nonwhite subjects (adjusted OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.21) compared with white subjects (adjusted OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your average cracker is only 27 percent more likely to be killed if he owns a gun, but the average African-American is *74% more likely to be!* Why is that? I have a couple African-American friends in my neighborhood ('hood, if you will) who are avid shooters. Is there anybody here who thinks that they are magically half again as likely to be killed as I am because of some genetic factor, the minute they pick up a gun? Of course not. Something's rotten here in Denmark.
> 
> And the last wonderful part of the survey - *Guns Protect You From Non-Gun Crime!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:Further analyses revealed that a gun in the home was... not (a risk factor) by nonfirearm means (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.11).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait a minute! You mean that by having a gun in the house, I am *seventeen percent less likely to be beaten to death, stabbed, or molested by a goat? Sign me up!*
> 
> Don't even get me started on the wide CIs which indicate a strong possibility that you are only *one percent on the average more likely to be killed by a firearm if you have a firearm in the house*. Factor in the higher personal risk which makes people likely to have a firearm in the first place, and this survey falls apart.
> 
> So, to review the highly suspect conclusions of this survey:
> 
> * Black people love to shoot each other. In fact, they just can't wait to shoot each other. Just holding a firearm in your hand, if you are black, will probably cause someone to shoot you. (Probably a cop!)
> * If you have a gun in the house, and you commit suicide, you are more likely to use the gun. This surprises exactly no one.
> * The whole sample size is about 10,000 people. No wonder the confidence levels are so broad.
> 
> FlatSix's conclusion: *Racist, politically motivated garbage from an organization whose sole purpose, based on my review of their documentation, is to advance the policy of firearm confiscation in this country.*
Click to expand...

Flatsix, no this was not sloppiness, just an assumption that anyone who felt confident enough to criticize the statistics would have some knowledge about control groups. The purpose of the control group is to 'eliminate' the effects of the myriad variations that exist amongst study populations - eg church attendance, smoker status, alcohol intake, marital status, whatever. There is an assumption that these myriad confounding effects will be reduced by randomization, so that the variable of interest (in this case gun ownership) is isolated. In order to make the data more robust some of the more important variables are specifically matched in the control group, in this case sex race and age.

My comment "The purpose of the controls in these studies is to eliminate the effects of confounding factors such as socioeconomic group, race, education etc" was:

1/. a generalization about controls

2/. not a reference to the Wiebe paper specifically

3/. not "sloppiness".

I fail to see how you conclude that Wiebe's (not mine) paper is racist but no doubt you will clarify this for me.

Aus_MD


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_which takes me back to my origional posts on the subject of firearms - the AK-47 is a fantastic tool for its job. and, sorry to say this, I think that both the viet cong and the typcial iraqi resistor are a hell of a lot tougher than the average american that I see hanging out at the mall. and, at least in iraq, better trained.
> 
> 
> 
> It's increasingly obvious in these posts that you are operating from deeper motives than simple concern about individual safety - namely a deep contempt for, or even hatred of, the average American "at the mall" and a belief that you are vastly superior to them thanks to your combat training and experience. Perhaps you are correct, but the average American hick has historically demonstrated quite an ability to surprise his detractors.
> 
> Accepting for a moment that the IDF is the best-trained infantry force in the world - which is probably close to the truth - I feel confident in saying that they would find the Florida Glades, or the hills of Kentucky, to be more than too much for them.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> "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...

A discussion about guns is rarely about guns. It is about how the idividual relates to other individuals and how the State and the individual relate to each other. It is about control and power. I mistrust anyone or anything who does not trust me with a gun. A lot has been written on the question of why people want to give up their means of defense and why they also insist you give up yours. Here is a link to the best analysis of the subject I have seen:

An unarmed "gentleman" is a dandy. I am serious about this. The obligation of defending the innocent is a core component of being a gentleman. If one declines that obligation, the clothes, manners, and trappings of being a "gentleman" are nothing but gift wrap on an empty box.


----------



## DougNZ

"An unarmed 'gentleman' is a dandy" - Liberty ship

The weapon of a gentleman is his mind. All the pointy, shooty things are just tools.

Most days I defend someone in a position of weakness or discomfort, somewhere along the way. Never have I had to pick up a gun or knife to do so. Neither has my father, although his father did, during the war. My great-grandfather didn't, and neither did his father, to my knowledge, and he was a 'founding father' in this country. All of us have owned guns but none of us ever carried a weapon outside of service. I very much dispute that any of us are / were dandies or, as you so cleverly put it, empty boxes surrounded by gift wrapping. We have all made significant contributions to society and have done so without the need to brandish weapons.

I think you have read way too many romance novels. I also think you should cut back on your Rambo and Dirty Harry movies. They are not real, you know.


----------



## mokita

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_


Great pic of Doc. One of his revolvers looks like it has a bird's head grip. I have always admired them and was tempted when Ruger offered the Bird's Head Vaquero:


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_which takes me back to my origional posts on the subject of firearms - the AK-47 is a fantastic tool for its job. and, sorry to say this, I think that both the viet cong and the typcial iraqi resistor are a hell of a lot tougher than the average american that I see hanging out at the mall. and, at least in iraq, better trained.
> 
> 
> 
> It's increasingly obvious in these posts that you are operating from deeper motives than simple concern about individual safety - namely a deep contempt for, or even hatred of, the average American "at the mall" and a belief that you are vastly superior to them thanks to your combat training and experience. Perhaps you are correct, but the average American hick has historically demonstrated quite an ability to surprise his detractors.
> 
> Accepting for a moment that the IDF is the best-trained infantry force in the world - which is probably close to the truth - I feel confident in saying that they would find the Florida Glades, or the hills of Kentucky, to be more than too much for them.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> "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...
> 
> A discussion about guns is rarely about guns. It is about how the idividual relates to other individuals and how the State and the individual relate to each other. It is about control and power. I mistrust anyone or anything who does not trust me with a gun. A lot has been written on the question of why people want to give up their means of defense and why they also insist you give up yours. Here is a link to the best analysis of the subject I have seen:
> 
> An unarmed "gentleman" is a dandy. I am serious about this. The obligation of defending the innocent is a core component of being a gentleman. If one declines that obligation, the clothes, manners, and trappings of being a "gentleman" are nothing but gift wrap on an empty box.
Click to expand...

I guess there is no better way of saying this - you are an idiot.

this is a discussion about guns. do not mistake the gun for your pinus. I am not trying to emasculate you. if you insist on relating your manhood to a firearm then you will always be a looser, sorry.

what you, and flax six, and several other people here seem to try to put aside is that a firearm is a tool, just like a pair of tailors scissors, or a paint brush. some people know more about them than other people. that doesn't mean that one persons pinus is larger than the other, it means that when you were in school learning your job, he was out learning how to use that tool. do not find that threatening or emasculating.

now, in the same way that a tailor might tell you something about fabric, maybe somebody who knows something about this subject will share with you some insights. do not be scared, do not feel emasculated.

if you ask a pro, they will tell you that it is not a rational solution to self defense to carry a firearm, or to keep one at home,. that there are better tools to solve the problem of self defense.

nobody wants you to not be able to defend yourself, by all means. if you would actually read my posts, you would see that in many cases, I have apploaded the seriousness with which people have approached their training and use of firearms.

as to the whole "gentleman" and "defending the innocent" issue- what I want to understand is where were you guys when there was an opportunity to serve your army and your community in the armed forces? all of the founding fathers, and for that matter, most of the greek philosophers we like to quote, carried arms not to feel like they were well hung, but as part of a community militia or army. if you take that issue so seriously, did you serve your country? and if not, why not?

how many times have you "defended the innocent" with your firearm? I have been in a position that could be discribed as "defending the innocent" once or twice, as a private citizen, without a firearm.

I have no interest in whether or not you defend yourself, or whether or not you are a dandy. I would like you not to do something stupid, like use the wrong ammo and shoot a hole through my house in the middle of the night because you were too stupid to operate your firearm correctly, but as long as you can handle that, I don't care what you do. don't flatter yourself to think that I am trying to effect your manhood - I just don't trust somebody who is so irrational as to think that a firearm is going to help him feel like a man not to kill somebody by mistake or loose his firearm to somebody who will use it to commit a crime.


----------



## LabelKing

Dueling pistols.

*"In truth, I am not altogether wrong to consider dandyism a form of religion."

Charles Baudelaire*


----------



## DougNZ

Now duelling pistols are a work of art. A boxed, matched pair can be breathtaking. I also find old fowling pieces to be very elegant. Any gentleman lucky to have those in fine condition gets a pat on the back from me.

Anyone who pulls out his 1911, glock, or whatever, at a moments notice is likely to see the door shut behind me as I leave his house, never to return.


----------



## dueceman455

I have been a long time lurker here for some time, and this topic piqued my interest. Please don't hose me with flames just yet. As many Americans, I grew up around firearms. Just to add an interesting tidbit, I also had to conduct business transactions in "not so swell" parts of town. When my state decided to allow it's citizens to carry conealed handguns for self defense, I partook in this endeavor. You do have to take a course to achieve this goal. Learning the legal niceties of when you are in a legal right to use deadly force. For our fans overseas, one subject might surprise you. The biggest reason that Americans go through the process in getting a CCW permit in the states that allow is not to be a "gentleman" with his well tailored suits, but to carry a handgun while travelling. If you have your permit to carry, you can carry it in your automobile. From my experience, that is why most folks go through the ordeal in getting a CCW license. I will admit, there have been times where after I received my license to carry a concealed weapon, I did do such when I had to work in a bad part of town. However, I always understood the responsibility I partook upon in doing so. Even though I carried a Colt Python, I didn't act like the cowboys at the old west saloon. I knew I didn't want to blow anybody's brains out. I wanted to make sure my scalp was safe. No more, no less. Did I act like a bad ass due to me carrying a Colt revolver? No. Most folks you deal with in the States that do carry, won't tell you they are. Only the insane mental midgets make it a point that they have weapons, whether they be edged or a firestick.
Also, for the older members of this fine forum who may remember the old Buicks of past vintage, they can understand my nickname. I always fancied large American cars. I have thwarted two carjackings in the past ten years. I did not wave my handgun like Zorro with a sword, to stop the crime. However, if I had not been armed, I would have surely been killed and my auto been jacked with me being on the curb dead.
The States are not like the rest of the world, even though many of us living in the U.S. think. We must realize we are one, or if not the only major industrialized nation which has the gun culture, just like Great Britain did until early part of the last century. Many gentleman carried their Webley Bulldogs in England to defend themselves against ruffians in the late nineteenth century, and early twentieth century. Please do not confuse us Americans who do legally carry pistols to defend our lives and property as "cowboys", who are "itching" to blow the other poor jerk in the dirt. Nine times out of ten, folks who legally carry a concealed pistol are not like that. 
Thank you for reading my first post. Thank you again gentlemen.



Life is excellent so long as you have a fine cigar, and an equally nice Cadillac.


----------



## DougNZ

Nicely put, and welcome aboard. I have a feeling your future contributions will be greatly valued.


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> A discussion about guns is rarely about guns. It is about how the idividual relates to other individuals and how the State and the individual relate to each other. It is about control and power. I mistrust anyone or anything who does not trust me with a gun. A lot has been written on the question of why people want to give up their means of defense and why they also insist you give up yours. Here is a link to the best analysis of the subject I have seen:
> 
> An unarmed "gentleman" is a dandy. I am serious about this. The obligation of defending the innocent is a core component of being a gentleman. If one declines that obligation, the clothes, manners, and trappings of being a "gentleman" are nothing but gift wrap on an empty box.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess there is no better way of saying this - you are an idiot.
> 
> this is a discussion about guns. do not mistake the gun for your pinus. I am not trying to emasculate you. if you insist on relating your manhood to a firearm then you will always be a looser, sorry.
> 
> what you, and flax six, and several other people here seem to try to put aside is that a firearm is a tool, just like a pair of tailors scissors, or a paint brush. some people know more about them than other people. that doesn't mean that one persons pinus is larger than the other, it means that when you were in school learning your job, he was out learning how to use that tool. do not find that threatening or emasculating.
> 
> now, in the same way that a tailor might tell you something about fabric, maybe somebody who knows something about this subject will share with you some insights. do not be scared, do not feel emasculated.
> 
> if you ask a pro, they will tell you that it is not a rational solution to self defense to carry a firearm, or to keep one at home,. that there are better tools to solve the problem of self defense.
> 
> nobody wants you to not be able to defend yourself, by all means. if you would actually read my posts, you would see that in many cases, I have apploaded the seriousness with which people have approached their training and use of firearms.
> 
> as to the whole "gentleman" and "defending the innocent" issue- what I want to understand is where were you guys when there was an opportunity to serve your army and your community in the armed forces? all of the founding fathers, and for that matter, most of the greek philosophers we like to quote, carried arms not to feel like they were well hung, but as part of a community militia or army. if you take that issue so seriously, did you serve your country? and if not, why not?
> 
> how many times have you "defended the innocent" with your firearm? I have been in a position that could be discribed as "defending the innocent" once or twice, as a private citizen, without a firearm.
> 
> I have no interest in whether or not you defend yourself, or whether or not you are a dandy. I would like you not to do something stupid, like use the wrong ammo and shoot a hole through my house in the middle of the night because you were too stupid to operate your firearm correctly, but as long as you can handle that, I don't care what you do. don't flatter yourself to think that I am trying to effect your manhood - I just don't trust somebody who is so irrational as to think that a firearm is going to help him feel like a man not to kill somebody by mistake or loose his firearm to somebody who will use it to commit a crime.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm.... should I ignore your _ad hominem_ insult or invoke the _code duello_?.......I'll ignore it. I choose to respond your post for the benefit of the thread.

I will say, however, that a "gun discussion" is coming to an end when the shopworn and disproven gun/penis argument is deployed. Please spare us all the embarassment of your shifting the discussion from the rationale of firearms ownership to the straw dog of whether or not someone's "manhood" is threatened. Very cheap shot, in my opinion, and unworthy of serious consideration.

Notice that I said "an UNARMED gentleman is a 'dandy." I did not say "gun." I just happen to think that one should be armed to the limit the law allows. If gentlemen are not so armed, they are at a disadvantage to the non-gentleman, who often arms himself with whatever he wants regardless of laws. Why is that better for society? I'll stand by my statement, and most people who know me don't consider me to be an idiot.

I normally don't share much personal information on lists. It is possible to make cogent arguments without throwing one's weight around or "pulling rank." We are all unknown to one another and anyone can say or imply anything so I think it's better to stick to the impersonal; arguments can be made and sustained that way. However, since your post seemed to be a series of challenges:

I separated from the Army, honorably, as a Captain. It is likely that I am among the most highly trained person on this thread when it comes to firearms, from the standpoint of their use, safety, and the law. On a couple of occaisions, I have been paid as an expert to consult on homicide cases. I was never an "expert witness" because I didn't tell them what they wanted to hear. I'm a certified firearms instructor and have trained many, many people in groups and individually in everything from firearms safety to basic marksmanship to defensive tactics, _including weapons retention_. I have lectured on avoiding criminal attack and controlling violent confrontations, as well as laws regarding the use of lethal force and firearms law in general. That's about all I care to share, but I hope you get the point. Don't pull rank on me.

I will take direct issue with you on the one statement of fact you made: "if you ask a pro, they will tell you that it is not a rational solution to self defense to carry a firearm, or to keep one at home,. that there are better tools to solve the problem of self defense." Globetrotter, I know _a lot_ of "pros." I do not know a single one who would say that a 100 pound woman (sufficiently trained, blah blah blah) would be better off without a gun than with one when facing a 200 pound man intent on bodily harm. If you weigh 200 pounds, go to a zoo and look at a 400 pound bear. It's probably pretty peaceful and well fed. But look at it. Now imagine you are in the cage and the bear's on meth and wants to rape you. In that imaginary scenario, do you want a gun or not? The women I have trained, many "after the fact," want a gun. Period. And I don't know a "pro" (whatever that means) who would disagree with them.


----------



## Briguy

*The obligation of defending the innocent is a core component of being a gentleman. *

Obligation? Sworn police officers, on duty, have an obligation to intervene. They also have their radio, kevlar vest, visible authority (their uniform), training, experience, and a whole lot of folks just like them ready to come screaming to their aid with a click of their radio.

Several years ago, a few months after I had left the service (6 years, US Marines military police), some friends and I were having an evening bbq. A car stopped across the street from us, where we all could see a man and woman arguing inside the car. Then the man started to beat the crap out of the woman. The guys I was with looked at me with a 'do something' look on their face. So, using all of my training and experience, I did something. I asked if anyone had a cell phone on them. One fellow handed me his phone. I called the local police, told them what was going on, then handed the phone back to its owner. The guys looked at me like I was a wuss. 90 seconds later, three scout cars came roaring up from three different directions. They pulled the dirtbag out of his car, put the 'ol habius grabus on him, and the problem was solved.

Tragically, incident on top of incident have occurred where an off-duty intervention went horribly wrong and either the off-duty cop or an innocent wound up dead as a result. This has occurred so often that many police departments, as a matter of official policy, require or at least encourage their officers to limit their off-duty response in an incident to reporting the situation to the local police, and being a good witness.

When the cops themselves are being told to limit their involvment in off-duty situations, my friend, that is something which can be called a clue.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> A discussion about guns is rarely about guns. It is about how the idividual relates to other individuals and how the State and the individual relate to each other. It is about control and power. I mistrust anyone or anything who does not trust me with a gun. A lot has been written on the question of why people want to give up their means of defense and why they also insist you give up yours. Here is a link to the best analysis of the subject I have seen:
> 
> An unarmed "gentleman" is a dandy. I am serious about this. The obligation of defending the innocent is a core component of being a gentleman. If one declines that obligation, the clothes, manners, and trappings of being a "gentleman" are nothing but gift wrap on an empty box.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess there is no better way of saying this - you are an idiot.
> 
> this is a discussion about guns. do not mistake the gun for your pinus. I am not trying to emasculate you. if you insist on relating your manhood to a firearm then you will always be a looser, sorry.
> 
> what you, and flax six, and several other people here seem to try to put aside is that a firearm is a tool, just like a pair of tailors scissors, or a paint brush. some people know more about them than other people. that doesn't mean that one persons pinus is larger than the other, it means that when you were in school learning your job, he was out learning how to use that tool. do not find that threatening or emasculating.
> 
> now, in the same way that a tailor might tell you something about fabric, maybe somebody who knows something about this subject will share with you some insights. do not be scared, do not feel emasculated.
> 
> if you ask a pro, they will tell you that it is not a rational solution to self defense to carry a firearm, or to keep one at home,. that there are better tools to solve the problem of self defense.
> 
> nobody wants you to not be able to defend yourself, by all means. if you would actually read my posts, you would see that in many cases, I have apploaded the seriousness with which people have approached their training and use of firearms.
> 
> as to the whole "gentleman" and "defending the innocent" issue- what I want to understand is where were you guys when there was an opportunity to serve your army and your community in the armed forces? all of the founding fathers, and for that matter, most of the greek philosophers we like to quote, carried arms not to feel like they were well hung, but as part of a community militia or army. if you take that issue so seriously, did you serve your country? and if not, why not?
> 
> how many times have you "defended the innocent" with your firearm? I have been in a position that could be discribed as "defending the innocent" once or twice, as a private citizen, without a firearm.
> 
> I have no interest in whether or not you defend yourself, or whether or not you are a dandy. I would like you not to do something stupid, like use the wrong ammo and shoot a hole through my house in the middle of the night because you were too stupid to operate your firearm correctly, but as long as you can handle that, I don't care what you do. don't flatter yourself to think that I am trying to effect your manhood - I just don't trust somebody who is so irrational as to think that a firearm is going to help him feel like a man not to kill somebody by mistake or loose his firearm to somebody who will use it to commit a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmmmm.... should I ignore your _ad hominem_ insult or invoke the _code duello_?.......I'll ignore it. I choose to respond your post for the benefit of the thread.
> 
> I will say, however, that a "gun discussion" is coming to an end when the shopworn and disproven gun/penis argument is deployed. Please spare us all the embarassment of your shifting the discussion from the rationale of firearms ownership to the straw dog of whether or not someone's "manhood" is threatened. Very cheap shot, in my opinion, and unworthy of serious consideration.
> 
> Notice that I said "an UNARMED gentleman is a 'dandy." I did not say "gun." I just happen to think that one should be armed to the limit the law allows. If gentlemen are not so armed, they are at a disadvantage to the non-gentleman, who often arms himself with whatever he wants regardless of laws. Why is that better for society? I'll stand by my statement, and most people who know me don't consider me to be an idiot.
> 
> I normally don't share much personal information on lists. It is possible to make cogent arguments without throwing one's weight around or "pulling rank." We are all unknown to one another and anyone can say or imply anything so I think it's better to stick to the impersonal; arguments can be made and sustained that way. However, since your post seemed to be a series of challenges:
> 
> I separated from the Army, honorably, as a Captain. It is likely that I am among the most highly trained person on this thread when it comes to firearms, from the standpoint of their use, safety, and the law. On a couple of occaisions, I have been paid as an expert to consult on homicide cases. I was never an "expert witness" because I didn't tell them what they wanted to hear. I'm a certified firearms instructor and have trained many, many people in groups and individually in everything from firearms safety to basic marksmanship to defensive tactics, _including weapons retention_. I have lectured on avoiding criminal attack and controlling violent confrontations, as well as laws regarding the use of lethal force and firearms law in general. That's about all I care to share, but I hope you get the point. Don't pull rank on me.
> 
> I will take direct issue with you on the one statement of fact you made: "if you ask a pro, they will tell you that it is not a rational solution to self defense to carry a firearm, or to keep one at home,. that there are better tools to solve the problem of self defense." Globetrotter, I know _a lot_ of "pros." I do not know a single one who would say that a 100 pound woman (sufficiently trained, blah blah blah) would be better off without a gun than with one when facing a 200 pound man intent on bodily harm. If you weigh 200 pounds, go to a zoo and look at a 400 pound bear. It's probably pretty peaceful and well fed. But look at it. Now imagine you are in the cage and the bear's on meth and wants to rape you. In that imaginary scenario, do you want a gun or not? The women I have trained, many "after the fact," want a gun. Period. And I don't know a "pro" (whatever that means) who would disagree with them.
Click to expand...

liberty ship, a few points

1. I don't think that I introduced the "weapon/pinus" issue - I think that if you state the only way that you can be a gentleman is to be armed, then you are introducing it.

2. I asked about whether or not you had served your country. you answered. I think that I have made it very clear in all of the posts that I have made in this thread, and in the 2 other threads related to this issue, and in the thread on SF related to this - although I do not own or carry a firearm, all of my objections to firearms involve people who are not willing to make the nessasary investment of time and energy to learn to operate them correctly. It has been my point, from the beginging, that (sharp end) military people are at least trained in the handling of firearms.

3. as with DukeGrad, it is always possible that people will have similar experiences and come up with different conclussions. I can't say that I am one of those people who hang out with guys he from his youth, but I do happen to know several people who are in the security business (and I am not talking about people who install alarms or rent out cops). I don't know anybody who recomends for civillians to keep firearms as a way of keeping themselves safe. you may very well have different experience.

4. the article you attached doesn't strike me as very scientific, and it doesn't really address any of the points that have been raised here. it also, frankly, has just enough raciest edge to make me wonder about the organization that produced it.

5. this may be shallow of me, but simply by changing the fact that you have served in the military, from my perespective you have changed the whole tone and meaning of your previous post. I do not have to agree with you, but at least it has meaning. yes, I think that you are right, in a sense - part of the job of the gentleman is to be in a position to defend himself, his loved ones, his community and those to whom he has responsiblities. and, yes, that goes to the essense of what makes him a gentleman. I would agree with those points. I would say that the way to do so would be to serve in the military and make available to you the proper tools to do the job later in life. that doesn't mean that the proper tool for the job is a .45, but I would agree that in some rare circomstances it may be.

6. I apologize for calling you an idiot - but frankly, all things equal, if you had made a statement like you did, and posted the link that you did, and then written that you would have liked to have served in the military but you it was too important to finish your studies to serve in the military, I would continue to consider you an idiot.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by dueceman455_
> 
> I have been a long time lurker here for some time, and this topic piqued my interest. Please don't hose me with flames just yet. As many Americans, I grew up around firearms. Just to add an interesting tidbit, I also had to conduct business transactions in "not so swell" parts of town. When my state decided to allow it's citizens to carry conealed handguns for self defense, I partook in this endeavor. You do have to take a course to achieve this goal. Learning the legal niceties of when you are in a legal right to use deadly force. For our fans overseas, one subject might surprise you. The biggest reason that Americans go through the process in getting a CCW permit in the states that allow is not to be a "gentleman" with his well tailored suits, but to carry a handgun while travelling. If you have your permit to carry, you can carry it in your automobile. From my experience, that is why most folks go through the ordeal in getting a CCW license. I will admit, there have been times where after I received my license to carry a concealed weapon, I did do such when I had to work in a bad part of town. However, I always understood the responsibility I partook upon in doing so. Even though I carried a Colt Python, I didn't act like the cowboys at the old west saloon. I knew I didn't want to blow anybody's brains out. I wanted to make sure my scalp was safe. No more, no less. Did I act like a bad ass due to me carrying a Colt revolver? No. Most folks you deal with in the States that do carry, won't tell you they are. Only the insane mental midgets make it a point that they have weapons, whether they be edged or a firestick.
> Also, for the older members of this fine forum who may remember the old Buicks of past vintage, they can understand my nickname. I always fancied large American cars. I have thwarted two carjackings in the past ten years. I did not wave my handgun like Zorro with a sword, to stop the crime. However, if I had not been armed, I would have surely been killed and my auto been jacked with me being on the curb dead.
> The States are not like the rest of the world, even though many of us living in the U.S. think. We must realize we are one, or if not the only major industrialized nation which has the gun culture, just like Great Britain did until early part of the last century. Many gentleman carried their Webley Bulldogs in England to defend themselves against ruffians in the late nineteenth century, and early twentieth century. Please do not confuse us Americans who do legally carry pistols to defend our lives and property as "cowboys", who are "itching" to blow the other poor jerk in the dirt. Nine times out of ten, folks who legally carry a concealed pistol are not like that.
> Thank you for reading my first post. Thank you again gentlemen.
> 
> Life is excellent so long as you have a fine cigar, and an equally nice Cadillac.


and again, not to beat a horse to death, but this is an example of having a need, finding the right tool for it, training well and using it to solve the problem. great. this is a perfect example of responsible firearm ownership.

welcome aboard.


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> 
> 
> Great pic of Doc. One of his revolvers looks like it has a bird's head grip. I have always admired them and was tempted when Ruger offered the Bird's Head Vaquero:
Click to expand...

Doc? Who's Doc? That's me! Notice the bespoke 4-button suitcoat and the elegant drape over the revolvers. Had that made by a chinaman in Dodge. The hat is a Tom Hirt 30x Beaver, Natural, with a bound edge brim. Someone snapped the picture when I stepped out of the conference room for a breath of fresh air during a recent contract negotiation. Flattering, n'est-ce pas? By the way, the opposing side seemed to come around to my way of thinking. Guess I just have a way with words. "I'm yo' huckleberry."

Seriously, the Bird's Head is a nice revolver. I have the full sized Vaquero in .44 mag, 7.5 inch barrel. It's a really fun gun to shoot.

[I just edited this post to remove the pic of the Bird's Head Ruger since it was making itself too big.]


----------



## globetrotter

liberty ship,

I have a couple of specific questions for you, that you may be able to enlighten me on something. I mean this perfectly seriously, and I do not mean this as a challenge in any way.

you have tought people, and if I understand it correctly, civillians and military, to use firearms. my concerns about firearm usage come down to a very few points, actually

1. it takes a while to teach a person to treat a firearm with enough respect - in my experience. I would say literally a few weeks of basic training, at a minimum. Probrably my biggest concern with firearms in America is that people don't secure them well enough, and do not think in terms of backdrop well enough - resulting in guns stolen and in people getting hit by bullets fired by people who didn't think that the bullet could carry that far. how has your experience been with this?


2. I have no doubt that most people who have firearms will be able to hit a paper target. very possibly much better than I ever was able. What I think is the weak point in the whole plan is the ability of people to either initiate the use of the firearm on the street - decide that they have to use the firearm, draw, chamber, aim, fire - successfuly or the ability to wake up at 3 am, clearly understand the threat, pick up the secured firearm, load and/or chamber a round, look for the threat, and engage without threatening any family members or nieghbors by accident from an angle (say, from upstairs or downstairs) in the dark, etc. having seen how difficult it is to train somebody to do this, I honestly don't think that it can be internalized quickly, and frankly, I think that it fades quickly once learned - I don't wake up any where near as clear headed as I did 20 years ago. 


a week or two ago, I heard a thump in the middle of the night. in 3-4 seconds, I was at the top of the stairs, having checked that my wife and son were where they were supposed to be, and I had a 22 inch hardwood nightstick in one hand and a 1 kilo fogger CS-gas cannister in the other. turns out that the sound was nothing, and after checking the house I went back to bed. but I would have to think that it would have taken me 30 seconds or more to have a firearm out, if not as much as a minute, and even then I would be very concerned about chambering a firearm having just woken from a deep sleep. 

so please, anybody who has trained civillians in the use of firearms, please chip in and let me know your thoughts on these two points.


----------



## mokita

Originally posted by globetrotter


> quote:
> I guess there is no better way of saying this - you are an idiot.


Interesting that you have elected to discuss the topic by name calling, instead of logical thoughts.



> quote:this is a discussion about guns. do not mistake the gun for your pinus. I am not trying to emasculate you. if you insist on relating your manhood to a firearm then you will always be a looser, sorry.


Given that you started out by calling a gentleman "an idiot," I would think that you would do yourself the service writing in a manner that is indicative of some degree of education and refinement. I guess there is no better way of saying this--you can't spell nor can you punctuate. The male sex organ is known as a "penis" not the thing you incorrectly attempted to spell. It is likely that you do not understand the difference between the words "lose," from which one extracts the word "loser," and "loose" which would properly apply to a pair of pants that are too large in the waist. Educated people understand that the first word in a sentence is capitalized and the hyphen is typed as I did and not as you did.

If you are going to insult someone, it would be much better form to not make yourself fit the description you used (idiot).



> quote: that doesn't mean that one persons pinus is larger than the other, it means that when you were in school learning your job, he was out learning how to use that tool. do not find that threatening or emasculating.


Please buy yourself a dictionary and learn to use it as a tool. What were you doing when he was in school learning to spell and write? I normally would never criticize someone for using poor grammer or for not knowing how to use a dictionary, but I make exceptions when the person in question begins by calling an educated person "an idiot."



> quote:if you ask a pro, they will tell you that it is not a rational solution to self defense to carry a firearm, or to keep one at home,. that there are better tools to solve the problem of self defense.


Um... buddy, did it ever occur to you that the person you insulted MIGHT, in fact, be a pro? Your comments above suggest that you are not well informed on this subject. A firearm is a rational and effective means of self-defense.


----------



## RJman

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> What were you doing when he was in school learning to spell and write? I normally would never criticize someone for using poor grammer


Ah, the irony. And your first language was English? Because globe's wasn't. Illiterate, heal thyself.

*************
RJman. Accept no imitations.


----------



## [email protected]

Every gentleman should have a bear on meth


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> Originally posted by globetrotter
> 
> 
> 
> quote:
> I guess there is no better way of saying this - you are an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that you have elected to discuss the topic by name calling, instead of logical thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:this is a discussion about guns. do not mistake the gun for your pinus. I am not trying to emasculate you. if you insist on relating your manhood to a firearm then you will always be a looser, sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given that you started out by calling a gentleman "an idiot," I would think that you would do yourself the service writing in a manner that is indicative of some degree of education and refinement. I guess there is no better way of saying this--you can't spell nor can you punctuate. The male sex organ is known as a "penis" not the thing you incorrectly attempted to spell. It is likely that you do not understand the difference between the words "lose," from which one extracts the word "loser," and "loose" which would properly apply to a pair of pants that are too large in the waist. Educated people understand that the first word in a sentence is capitalized and the hyphen is typed as I did and not as you did.
> 
> If you are going to insult someone, it would be much better form to not make yourself fit the description you used (idiot).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote: that doesn't mean that one persons pinus is larger than the other, it means that when you were in school learning your job, he was out learning how to use that tool. do not find that threatening or emasculating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please buy yourself a dictionary and learn to use it as a tool. What were you doing when he was in school learning to spell and write? I normally would never criticize someone for using poor grammer or for not knowing how to use a dictionary, but I make exceptions when the person in question begins by calling an educated person "an idiot."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:if you ask a pro, they will tell you that it is not a rational solution to self defense to carry a firearm, or to keep one at home,. that there are better tools to solve the problem of self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um... buddy, did it ever occur to you that the person you insulted MIGHT, in fact, be a pro? Your comments above suggest that you are not well informed on this subject. A firearm is a rational and effective means of self-defense.
Click to expand...

point taken.

1. when a person writes a post specifically linking his masculinity to his carrying a weapon, I am going to go with the opinion that he is an idiot. sorry. and, like I wrote before, as far as I am concerned, that statement put the whole genitilia issue on the table.

2. this is no excuse, yes, I should use a dictionary. and yes, it makes me look stupid to have such spelling mistakes. I am both dyslexic and writting in a language that is not my primary, or first language. please do excuse my spelling mistakes. so, I can choose not to take part in on line forums like this, or I can spend my day working with a dictionary, or I can sometimes look like a fool.

3. the military has a lot of people, doing a lot of things. I know what I did, Liberty Ship and others know what they did. This isn't a competition. It is hard for me to imagine a pro advising differently than I do. I imagine, that if LS was in fact on the sharp end of the military then it is probrably difficult for him to imagine that anyone would advise differently from what he did. I stand by my advise. I imagine that he stands by his.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by [email protected]_
> 
> Every gentleman should have a bear on meth


you ever see a dancing bear, matt? I am guessing that they don't have them in VN, but have you seen them anywhere else? that would be a cool little self defence item, eh?


----------



## [email protected]

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> you ever see a dancing bear, matt?


only when i was on acid


----------



## TE Hesketh

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 2. ...I think is the weak point in the whole plan is the ability of people to either initiate the use of the firearm on the street - ....or the ability to wake up at 3 am, clearly understand the threat, pick up the secured firearm, load and/or chamber a round, look for the threat, and engage without threatening any family members or nieghbors by accident from an angle (say, from upstairs or downstairs) ...


The following story has been told to me by a friend and former neigbour of the man involved, so I believe it to be true, but I havn't verified it. It took place in South Africa, a country with a significant crime rate in the cities, and where most people keep guns close to hand. There had been in this particular suburb a series of car thefts and violent robberies.
The man was woken up, early one morning by a loud noise. He grabed his gun and looked outside to see one of the cars being driven out of the garage. He fired a volley of shots and the car stopped. He called the police and, when they arrived, went outside to discover he had killed his daughter.

I personally can't help thinking Globetrotter is right.


----------



## DukeGrad

Gentlemen

Africa?
Gentlemen, you cant even discuss this place, the very issues we are discussing.
There is just no way?
We did not get to what to shoulder a weapon with?

What holseters do you all use?
Just curious.

Liberty Ship De Opresso Liber!
Airborne, All the Way!


Jimmy


----------



## DukeGrad

Globetrotter

No need for the name calling, we are all gentlemen here?
I think, besides, Liberty Ship is a soldier, and is not an idiot.
I can vouch for him.

Nce day my friend

Jimmy


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by DukeGrad_
> 
> Globetrotter
> 
> No need for the name calling, we are all gentlemen here?
> I think, besides, Liberty Ship is a soldier, and is not an idiot.
> I can vouch for him.
> 
> Nce day my friend
> 
> Jimmy


fair enough, Jimmy, I have appologized, and I hope that LS will accept my appology. I do believe that he said something stupid - we all do sometimes, myself included.


----------



## Briguy

Holsters: Rosen ARG, but have been experimenting with a CompTac CTAC. Wilson magazine pouch. Rosen dress belts.


----------



## DukeGrad

Brig Guy,
Globetrotter,

Thank you as well.
I have always worn military.
I found a place, Brigade, does nice, slim holsters, cheap.
Paid 70 80 bucks for one that I do like.
Not bad place, dont need to carry much more anyway, just the bullets, and they are in the magazine!
LOL
Thought that would get a roar from the crowd.

OK, gentlemen, have a nice day

Globetrotter, you have a nice weekend my friend,

Jimmy


----------



## globetrotter

jimmy,

have a nice weekend.

LS - having re-read your posts, with the knowledge that you were in the military, I would like to again apologize. they read totally differntly, and I certainly understand them differenlty, from this perspective. I looked for your email to drop you a line, but it isn't listed.

I would say that the diference makes it almost totally diffent in my mind - I would agree with you that one of the primary responsilibities of a gentleman is to defend himself, his family, his community and country. our disagreement is not on the responsibility, but on the way to go about doing it.


----------



## FlatSix

> quote:_Originally posted by TE Hesketh_
> The following story has been told to me by a friend and former neigbour of the man involved, so I believe it to be true, but I havn't verified it. It took place in South Africa, a country with a significant crime rate in the cities, and where most people keep guns close to hand. There had been in this particular suburb a series of car thefts and violent robberies.
> The man was woken up, early one morning by a loud noise. He grabed his gun and looked outside to see one of the cars being driven out of the garage. He fired a volley of shots and the car stopped. He called the police and, when they arrived, went outside to discover he had killed his daughter.
> 
> I personally can't help thinking Globetrotter is right.


I heard another story! My friend's cousin's brother's pal met some girl in a hotel and when he woke up *HE WAS IN THE BATHTUB FULL OF ICE WITH HIS KIDNEYS MISSING!*

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

"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


----------



## bosthist

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by TE Hesketh_
> The following story has been told to me by a friend and former neigbour of the man involved, so I believe it to be true, but I havn't verified it. It took place in South Africa, a country with a significant crime rate in the cities, and where most people keep guns close to hand. There had been in this particular suburb a series of car thefts and violent robberies.
> The man was woken up, early one morning by a loud noise. He grabed his gun and looked outside to see one of the cars being driven out of the garage. He fired a volley of shots and the car stopped. He called the police and, when they arrived, went outside to discover he had killed his daughter.
> 
> I personally can't help thinking Globetrotter is right.
> 
> 
> 
> I heard another story! My friend's cousin's brother's pal met some girl in a hotel and when he woke up *HE WAS IN THE BATHTUB FULL OF ICE WITH HIS KIDNEYS MISSING!*
Click to expand...

I heard another story! There was a guy in Washington state who kept guns unsecured in his house. A visitor to the house stole one of the guns. The gun ended up in the hands of a kid in Iowa who used it to rob a restaurant, where he shot and killed two of my friends.

But of course, no one here who owns guns has ever done anything improper with them. It is just all of the other gun owners who are jack***es.


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> jimmy,
> 
> have a nice weekend.
> 
> LS - having re-read your posts, with the knowledge that you were in the military, I would like to again apologize. they read totally differntly, and I certainly understand them differenlty, from this perspective. I looked for your email to drop you a line, but it isn't listed.
> 
> I would say that the diference makes it almost totally diffent in my mind - I would agree with you that one of the primary responsilibities of a gentleman is to defend himself, his family, his community and country. our disagreement is not on the responsibility, but on the way to go about doing it.


No problem all apologies accepted. Busy today. Will respond to your training civilians inquiry when I have time.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by TE Hesketh_
> The following story has been told to me by a friend and former neigbour of the man involved, so I believe it to be true, but I havn't verified it. It took place in South Africa, a country with a significant crime rate in the cities, and where most people keep guns close to hand. There had been in this particular suburb a series of car thefts and violent robberies.
> The man was woken up, early one morning by a loud noise. He grabed his gun and looked outside to see one of the cars being driven out of the garage. He fired a volley of shots and the car stopped. He called the police and, when they arrived, went outside to discover he had killed his daughter.
> 
> I personally can't help thinking Globetrotter is right.
> 
> 
> 
> I heard another story! My friend's cousin's brother's pal met some girl in a hotel and when he woke up *HE WAS IN THE BATHTUB FULL OF ICE WITH HIS KIDNEYS MISSING!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I heard another story! There was a guy in Washington state who kept guns unsecured in his house. A visitor to the house stole one of the guns. The gun ended up in the hands of a kid in Iowa who used it to rob a restaurant, where he shot and killed two of my friends.
> 
> But of course, no one here who owns guns has ever done anything improper with them. It is just all of the other gun owners who are jack***es.
Click to expand...

this, and the story from South AFrica, happen all the time. my father, who served in an good infrantry unit in the korean war, and grew up on a farm with firearms, and whose father and grandfather were both infantry men, once almost shot a friend of his who thought it would be a good holloween joke to walk into the house with a stocking mask on and pretend to be a burglar. my mother screamed, my father came down the stairs and chambered a round into his handgun. lucky for everyone that the guy recognized the sound and identified himself. my father didn't have the intention of telling him to stop - he was planning on just shooting him.


----------



## mokita

> quote:_Originally posted by DougNZ_
> 
> Now duelling pistols are a work of art. A boxed, matched pair can be breathtaking. I also find old fowling pieces to be very elegant. Any gentleman lucky to have those in fine condition gets a pat on the back from me.


I agree. For the gent who is planning a shoot with a loader, a matched pair of Purdeys is in order. The set below, however, was recently sold by Drake for $225,000.

I collect and shoot "best" shotguns, but have to admit that my Purdeys are not as fancy as the set in the pictures and my only matched pair was made by Joseph Lang.


----------



## Dmax

Those are beatiful guns. Is it a British tradition to carry two guns on a hunt or there is some other reason for a matching set? Are they both side-by-side or is one over-under?

Dimitry


----------



## TE Hesketh

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> I heard another story! My friend's cousin's brother's pal met some girl in a hotel and when he woke up *HE WAS IN THE BATHTUB FULL OF ICE WITH HIS KIDNEYS MISSING!*


You are insinuating perhaps that I am a liar?

As I tried to make clear, I am not merely parroting an urban myth such as that which you quote. A person I know and trust told me that this is what his neighbour did, when both were living as neigbhours in SA.

If you wish your arguments to be taken seriously you would well to start by taking others seriously.

Regards

Rob


----------



## globetrotter

yes, I believe that flatsix is implying that you are a liar. It appears that he thinks people who disagree with him make up stories to support their arguments. 

as I said, I believe your story just because it is something that happnes a great deal more often that we would like to think


----------



## DukeGrad

Mokita

Gorgeous guns, those Purdeys.
I would be afraid to get those dirty!
They would go in a safe, with my Marinella Ties.

Nice guns my friend

Jimmy


----------



## Dmax

Anyone else waiting excitedly to see what's new at the SHOT show?

I especially looking forward to see if FN SCAR is going to be made available to civialians and also the details of FN FS90 and FS2000 since they are suppose to be available for purchase shortly. 

Dimitry


----------



## globetrotter

every gentleman should have one


----------



## DukeGrad

Globetrotter

I do, I have the over/and under; just in case.
Great weapon, I like the 40mm itself, for close quarters shooting!
LOL
Nice site

Have nice day

Jimmy


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by DukeGrad_
> 
> Globetrotter
> 
> I do, I have the over/and under; just in case.
> Great weapon, I like the 40mm itself, for close quarters shooting!
> LOL
> Nice site
> 
> Have nice day
> 
> Jimmy


jimmy, as a matter of fact, for a period of time I had a 40 mm launcher too. and yes, it was a very good weapon. I never used it in close quarters, but my army didn't buy the shot shells, we only had the various explosive shells, but the bouncing frags and the willie pete were very nice.

didn't make me a gentleman, though. and I wasn't using it for fun, I was using it to take care of business.

I was very happy with some of FN's other products - the squad machine gun (7.62 mm) is a very good weapon, and their 9 mm handgun is not bad, if I remember correctly it was a partnership with browning.

but again, really not the type of thing you need to have at home.


----------



## mokita

> quote:_Originally posted by Dmax_
> 
> Those are beatiful guns. Is it a British tradition to carry two guns on a hunt or there is some other reason for a matching set? Are they both side-by-side or is one over-under?
> 
> Dimitry


The British use two (ocassionally three) matched guns for shooting driven game birds. The shooter has one gun and his loader has the second one (the guns are identical and differ only by the gold "1" or "2" that is inlayed. When the birds arrive, the shooter fires his two shots, then opens the gun and hands it to his loader, while he is taking the loaded second gun. While the shooter is emptying gun number 2, the loader drops two shells into gun 1 and closes it. Repeat. When three guns are used (this is rare), there are two loaders. Naturally, the whole point of matched guns is to make them feel and shoot identically.

Most of the older London Best guns were side-by-sides, but as with the switch from external to internal hammers, the big name custom builders (such as Boss, Purdey, Woodward, etc.) began to offer over-unders. Both configurations are typically sidelocks. Of the very best guns, two are boxlocks: the Winchester Model 21 and the John Dixon Round Action. Here is the receiver of a Round Action:

Note that the gun has no sideplates (compare to the Purdey). The name "round action" comes from the rounded receiver. The gun in the pic is one of a matched pair, offered for sale by Drake.


----------



## mokita

> quote:_Originally posted by DukeGrad_
> 
> Mokita
> 
> Gorgeous guns, those Purdeys.
> I would be afraid to get those dirty!
> They would go in a safe, with my Marinella Ties.
> 
> Nice guns my friend
> 
> Jimmy


They are not mine, but were easy to post from the web link. I own Purdeys and other London, Scottish, and Italian best guns. I do shoot them. The way I look at it, they are no different than a find violin and were designed for use. I do make one exception though. I have an Abbiatico and Salvinelli (ornate 28 ga sidelock OU) that I don't shoot because I have had some of the gold inlay pop off from recoil. The gun is repaired and has to stay in its case. When not in use, my guns live in steel vaults.


----------



## DukeGrad

Mokita

You are a collector!
Those are gorgeous, the Abbiatico and Salvinelli I have seen in NY, acutally lower Hudson, there is a British sporting gun shop that sell old, collector guns as well as the Purdyes, lots of Purdeys
The ornate inlay is worth a fortune!
I admire these guns, I can't afford them!
I agree, like a Violin, a great Malt, and great classical music.
Or like that 1757 Chateau D'Yquem that went for 1million dollars yesterday!

You have a nice day my friend.
Enjoy your weekend.


Jimmy


----------



## Dmax

Thank You Mokita. That was educational. I did not know there was a loader involed. I guess it comes from being an upper-class sport in England. An English gentleman does not load his own shotguns.

I like the looks of Beretta Silver Pigeons. They certainly not as rare and valauble as the guns you own but I ever get around to going bird hunting they would be  seriously considered.

Dimitry


----------



## DougNZ

Mokita, thank you for those pictures. Beautiful, absolutely beautiful. I love hand engraving, but steel engraving, and inlaying are about as good as it gets.

Now those are a gentleman's gun!


----------



## whnay.

I'm quite fond of english shotguns. My father has a matched pair of Holland & Holland rare 16 gauges that were handed down to him by his father. Though I think he is partial to his Beretta S06. 

For the shotgun enthusiasts among us, those Londoners or occasional visitors to London should stop into Asprey and check out the collection on display at the flagship on Bond St., truly magnificent.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## DukeGrad

Globetrotter

I was kidding about the 40 mm in close quarters!
LOL
Sorry for the confusion, yes, I am a little crazy at times, but not that bad!
Have nice day

Mokita, my God these are gorgeous.
I have too much time, am googling Purdeys and Holland and Holland.
A lot of gorgeous guns in this world.


OK
Gentlemen, have nice weekend, enjoy your guns, your familys.
Enjoy your weekends


Jimmy


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by DukeGrad_
> 
> Globetrotter
> 
> I was kidding about the 40 mm in close quarters!
> LOL
> Sorry for the confusion, yes, I am a little crazy at times, but not that bad!
> Have nice day
> 
> Mokita, my God these are gorgeous.
> I have too much time, am googling Purdeys and Holland and Holland.
> A lot of gorgeous guns in this world.
> 
> OK
> Gentlemen, have nice weekend, enjoy your guns, your familys.
> Enjoy your weekends
> 
> Jimmy


jimmy, they make a round with nu 2 shot for that, but I have never seen it used. I have seen the AT round (which normally has a safetly feature that activates it after about 50 feet) without a safety, effectivly activated from when it leaves the snout, used to blast a door.

have a nice weekend.


----------



## DougNZ

> quote:Africa?
> Gentlemen, you cant even discuss this place,


Duke Grad, this is very much a problem on this forum.

This topic has been debated, as usual, from a wholly American point of view. Other contributors have been from Canada, Britain, France, Germany, New Zealand and Australia (apologies if I left someone out), but everything has been related back to the American constitutional right to bear arms, etc, etc.

I would hazard a guess that all the posters from the foreign countries listed above view the US as a place filled with gun-totin' cowboys who are more concerned with their own rights than the well-being of others. Certainly, the attitudes to guns there is crazy to my way of thinking.

We have a lot of South Africans (and Zimbabwians) in our community who have arrived in the last 10 years. They all have a handful of personal horror stories, but they are their stories and they are important. If we 'foreigners' are all required (yawn) to discuss guns (and everything else, it seems) from the American viewpoint, can not Americans try to extend themselves to think outside their own star-spangled world?

Please do not dismiss things foreign out of hand.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> I'm quite fond of english shotguns. My father has a matched pair of Holland & Holland rare 16 gauges that were handed down to him by his father. Though I think he is partial to his Beretta S06.
> 
> For the shotgun enthusiasts among us, those Londoners or occasional visitors to London should stop into Asprey and check out the collection on display at the flagship on Bond St., truly magnificent.
> 
> ___________
> 
> "My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income."
> ~Errol Flynn


bill, that is a nice inheratance. tell me, do you have to have them recut or something when they were made for somebody else?


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by DougNZ_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:Africa?
> Gentlemen, you cant even discuss this place,
> 
> 
> 
> Duke Grad, this is very much a problem on this forum.
> 
> This topic has been debated, as usual, from a wholly American point of view. Other contributors have been from Canada, Britain, France, Germany, New Zealand and Australia (apologies if I left someone out), but everything has been related back to the American constitutional right to bear arms, etc, etc.
> 
> I would hazard a guess that all the posters from the foreign countries listed above view the US as a place filled with gun-totin' cowboys who are more concerned with their own rights than the well-being of others. Certainly, the attitudes to guns there is crazy to my way of thinking.
> 
> We have a lot of South Africans (and Zimbabwians) in our community who have arrived in the last 10 years. They all have a handful of personal horror stories, but they are their stories and they are important. If we 'foreigners' are all required (yawn) to discuss guns (and everything else, it seems) from the American viewpoint, can not Americans try to extend themselves to think outside their own star-spangled world?
> 
> Please do not dismiss things foreign out of hand.
Click to expand...

excellent point. (and you left out ISrael)


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> liberty ship,
> 
> I have a couple of specific questions for you, that you may be able to enlighten me on something. I mean this perfectly seriously, and I do not mean this as a challenge in any way.
> 
> you have tought people, and if I understand it correctly, civillians and military, to use firearms. my concerns about firearm usage come down to a very few points, actually
> 
> 1. it takes a while to teach a person to treat a firearm with enough respect - in my experience. I would say literally a few weeks of basic training, at a minimum. Probrably my biggest concern with firearms in America is that people don't secure them well enough, and do not think in terms of backdrop well enough - resulting in guns stolen and in people getting hit by bullets fired by people who didn't think that the bullet could carry that far. how has your experience been with this?
> 
> 2. I have no doubt that most people who have firearms will be able to hit a paper target. very possibly much better than I ever was able. What I think is the weak point in the whole plan is the ability of people to either initiate the use of the firearm on the street - decide that they have to use the firearm, draw, chamber, aim, fire - successfuly or the ability to wake up at 3 am, clearly understand the threat, pick up the secured firearm, load and/or chamber a round, look for the threat, and engage without threatening any family members or nieghbors by accident from an angle (say, from upstairs or downstairs) in the dark, etc. having seen how difficult it is to train somebody to do this, I honestly don't think that it can be internalized quickly, and frankly, I think that it fades quickly once learned - I don't wake up any where near as clear headed as I did 20 years ago.
> 
> a week or two ago, I heard a thump in the middle of the night. in 3-4 seconds, I was at the top of the stairs, having checked that my wife and son were where they were supposed to be, and I had a 22 inch hardwood nightstick in one hand and a 1 kilo fogger CS-gas cannister in the other. turns out that the sound was nothing, and after checking the house I went back to bed. but I would have to think that it would have taken me 30 seconds or more to have a firearm out, if not as much as a minute, and even then I would be very concerned about chambering a firearm having just woken from a deep sleep.
> 
> so please, anybody who has trained civillians in the use of firearms, please chip in and let me know your thoughts on these two points.


Based on my experience as a civilian training civilians in firearms personal protection, I am happy to try to answer your questions and share my thoughts.

As an instructor, I have introduced quite a few people to firearms. Many were anti-gun, or at least neutral on the subject. Many had never handled a gun before. Most were women. The women are the most interesting and easy to teach. They wanted training for a variety of reasons, some of which you can imagine; but the most surprising was that many had just had their first child. Women who had gone through life indifferent to their own safety would suddenly realize that they had a helpless life to protect now and they would reluctantly seek the most efficient means of doing so. I can say that in every case, from rape victims to new mothers, the women I introduced to firearms experienced an epiphany. Once they learned safety and the laws involving the use of leathal force, once they "knew the rules," the transformations I saw in these women were startling. Self-confidence and self-esteem skyrocketed. I call it "enlightened, rational empowerment." This, to me, is at the core of all gun issues. It is that notion of enlightened, rational empowerment that, once you have it, you are not likely to give up without a fight. And I believe that it is enlightened, rational empowerment that the State consciously and deliberately seeks to deprive you of through gun control.

Regarding your point 1, I would disagree with the notion that it takes weeks of basic training to render someone safe and effective with a handgun for personal protection. The rules of engagement and ranges are very different from the military. The main part of the training is classroom and involves safety, mindset, and the law, in addition to operation and maintenance. Safety training involves basic firearms safety, as well as safe storage. People new to firearms are scared, they listen. I spend time on the moral, legal, and civil consequences of over-penetration and recommend defensive ammo that minimizes that risk. I have people train at 12 feet for defensive shooting. Most can do that easily, and it is a distance that is with the bounds of "the reasonable man test" for defense. You would be hard pressed to shoot someone at 100 yards and claim an "immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or great bodily harm." That was a case I consulted on, that and the fact the guy was shot in the back riding away on a bicycle made me say it was probably not self-defense!

Regarding your point 2, that's a training issue. I address it through case studies and "what if's" and mental rehersals. Also, I tell people that the firearm is only a part of an entire system of self defense which includes alarms, dogs if possible, and other precautions. The trick is not to be taken by surprise at close quarters. This goes for the street, too. Hyper-awareness helps you have time and distance. If someone thinks there is someone in his or her home, I don't recommend that she go looking for him. That's a whole different thing. She needs to barricade or get behind an obstacle with her handgun, dial 911, and keep them on the line. Unless it was a "violent and tumultuous entry," I recommend verbally engaging the intruder from the fortified position before "opening fire" to eliminate the possiblity of shooting a good guy. And, still, no shooting unless there is "an immediate and otherwise unaviodable threat of death or great bodily harm to the innocent."

The laws of civilian use of lethal force are very cut and dried, with no "escalation of force" issues. Once someone understands those laws, the shoot/no shoot decision is easier. It's binary.

Regarding your scenario: "decide that they have to use the firearm, draw, chamber, aim, fire," forget the "chamber." I recommend keeping defensive firearms in ready conditions. "Chambering" takes two hands, you might only have one. The storage methods I recommend are totally child proof and offer 5 second access. In the case of you and your stick and CS, better than nothing but I wouldn't expose myself in that way. Were you back-lit? Someone with a gun might shoot you.

That gives you an overview; it is by no means complete. The good news is that there is nothing special about me. There are thousands of people like me offering similar training across the country. People who get carry permits usually are exposed to such training, or seek it out. People who are not immersed in the "gun culture" don't understand how seriously most law abiding Americans take their responsibility. I think that there are 300,000,000 privately owned firearms in the US, you usually only hear about the very few that are used illegally or negligently. Everyone I know who owns or carrys a gun for defense takes these issues _very_ seriously.


----------



## mokita

> quote:_Originally posted by DukeGrad_
> 
> Mokita
> 
> You are a collector!
> Those are gorgeous, the Abbiatico and Salvinelli I have seen in NY, acutally lower Hudson, there is a British sporting gun shop that sell old, collector guns as well as the Purdyes, lots of Purdeys
> The ornate inlay is worth a fortune!
> I admire these guns, I can't afford them!
> I agree, like a Violin, a great Malt, and great classical music.
> Or like that 1757 Chateau D'Yquem that went for 1million dollars yesterday!
> 
> You have a nice day my friend.
> Enjoy your weekend.
> 
> Jimmy


You can see examples of A&S guns here:

Here is a gun with engraving that is similar to the one I have, but has no gold inlay:

I looked all around their site and couldn't find anything approaching the engraving and inlay of my gun. The pic does illustrate the kind of engraving they use. I have a Perazzi that is similarly engraved.

Of the guns I own, the best grade Italian ones are finished unlike anything I have seen from any other source. The interior surfaces are like mirrors.

Although I love shooting my sidelocks and other high end guns, when I want to run high scores, I revert to my competition guns: Browning Pro Comp, Browning Special Sporting Clays, and my ordinary Beretta AL-390. I do not own (never have) a Beretta double, but they are known to be very nice pieces and are basically in a market that they share with Browning. Move up a notch and the market is divided between Krieghoff, Perazzi, and Kolar.


----------



## mstewarthm

> quote:_Originally posted by benecios_
> 
> I have been lurking around here for some time.On reading this post I realise I should be somewhere else.The differences between the US and the UK are too great.


--Pity, that. Gone are the days of Watson and Holmes protecting the vulnerable with their trusty revolvers, I guess, though it was only their large overcoats that enabled them to carry such forays out without sartorial compromise.

Maco


----------



## DukeGrad

Gentlemen

DougNZ, great point, was not leaving my dear friends out.

I am sorry, all here know my politics, very diplomatic as well.
I apologize.

Africa is a different song my friend.
That is why I reference it.

Mokita thank you.

Globetrotter, thank you for that site!
Nice weekend my friends



Jimmy


----------



## whnay.

> quote:
> bill, that is a nice inheratance. tell me, do you have to have them recut or something when they were made for somebody else?


I'm fortunately lucky in a sense that my father, his father and me have the same draw so alterations of the butt of the shotguns will not need adjusting. More than likely if adjustments were necessary Holland & Holland could take care of them, though I'd suspect it'd come at quite a high cost given that bespoke guns from them (if my memory serves me)start at 25K quid and up.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## DukeGrad

DougNZ

I read your note, you are upset.
I am not leaving our foreign friends out.
Again, most know my political views about my foreign friends.
I thought this out, where are they?
All our British friends, French.
This topic is stuck on USA drive, why?
I am not driving it.
It is an exciting topic, in my country.
Gun lovers love their guns, my friend

I am sorry if your read into my comments, but no comments were made about any other country.
Have nice weekend
Jimmy

Jimmy


----------



## mstewarthm

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> liberty ship,
> 
> I have a couple of specific questions for you, that you may be able to enlighten me on something. I mean this perfectly seriously, and I do not mean this as a challenge in any way.
> 
> you have tought people, and if I understand it correctly, civillians and military, to use firearms. my concerns about firearm usage come down to a very few points, actually
> 
> 1. it takes a while to teach a person to treat a firearm with enough respect - in my experience. I would say literally a few weeks of basic training, at a minimum. Probrably my biggest concern with firearms in America is that people don't secure them well enough, and do not think in terms of backdrop well enough - resulting in guns stolen and in people getting hit by bullets fired by people who didn't think that the bullet could carry that far. how has your experience been with this?


--An interesting discussion, and interesting questions (although you were certainly unnecessarily [and embarrassingly] rude to Mr. Liberty). So here, training & storage/control & being sure of your field of fire and background--all crucial issues. For the firearm that you would use for self-protection, the gun vaults and minivaults at
https://www.gunvault.com/
provide a good means of securing a ready-to-use weapon. Planning out scenarios including likely fields of fire, lighting scenarios, where your dog(s) are, means of egress, etc., AHEAD OF TIME are crucial, as are training and maintenance of a useful weapon (the collectors pieces should reside in the Big gun safe; the Glock goes in the bedroom gunvault). Setting up a likely backlit (for a perp) field of fire while assuring that none of your family members would be downrange of the target is important, and your later concern--shooting a threat vs punching paper--is also important, because the time to make decisions concerning your worldview and philosophical scruples is _not_ the middle of the night. So training, responsibility, and preparation are incumbent upon anyone who would avail him- or herself of the opportunity that some people have to use a firearm for self-defense. Any kids need to know that whatever initial challenge you bellow (more likely squeak, the way the vocal cords constrict) means Stay In Your Room!!!!!!



> quote:
> 2. I have no doubt that most people who have firearms will be able to hit a paper target.


I think your faith is misplaced, but that's another matter. Too much purchase-as-talisman occurs coupled with barroom-bragging-training for my taste.



> quote:
> very possibly much better than I ever was able. What I think is the weak point in the whole plan is the ability of people to either initiate the use of the firearm on the street - decide that they have to use the firearm, draw, chamber, aim, fire - successfuly or the ability to wake up at 3 am, clearly understand the threat, pick up the secured firearm, load and/or chamber a round, look for the threat, and engage without threatening any family members or nieghbors by accident from an angle (say, from upstairs or downstairs) in the dark, etc. having seen how difficult it is to train somebody to do this, I honestly don't think that it can be internalized quickly, and frankly, I think that it fades quickly once learned - I don't wake up any where near as clear headed as I did 20 years ago.


It certainly will without practice and training, yes. And anyone who would consider using any kind of deadly force needs to make the commitment not only to purchase and initial training but to recurrent training and practice, also of in-house scenarios. But as to wakefulness; a stranger detected in the house is usually accompanied by an unusual flood of adrenaline, which will likely help to sweep away the cobwebs.



> quote:
> a week or two ago, I heard a thump in the middle of the night. in 3-4 seconds, I was at the top of the stairs, having checked that my wife and son were where they were supposed to be, and I had a 22 inch hardwood nightstick in one hand and a 1 kilo fogger CS-gas cannister in the other.


Yes, as I suggested above.

Why not, similarly (plus four seconds), be there with a handgun, finger in register (off the trigger), needless to say?



> quote:
> turns out that the sound was nothing, and after checking the house I went back to bed. but I would have to think that it would have taken me 30 seconds or more to have a firearm out, if not as much as a minute, and even then I would be very concerned about chambering a firearm having just woken from a deep sleep.


This one I've answered above: the minivault. A good place for your CS gas/knife/whatever, also, should you not go the gun route. You are right that fumbling with ammunition or a magazine in the middle of the night is not a great "plan."

Technological progress coupled with a relatively free market is a wonderful thing.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> liberty ship,
> 
> I have a couple of specific questions for you, that you may be able to enlighten me on something. I mean this perfectly seriously, and I do not mean this as a challenge in any way.
> 
> you have tought people, and if I understand it correctly, civillians and military, to use firearms. my concerns about firearm usage come down to a very few points, actually
> 
> 1. it takes a while to teach a person to treat a firearm with enough respect - in my experience. I would say literally a few weeks of basic training, at a minimum. Probrably my biggest concern with firearms in America is that people don't secure them well enough, and do not think in terms of backdrop well enough - resulting in guns stolen and in people getting hit by bullets fired by people who didn't think that the bullet could carry that far. how has your experience been with this?
> 
> 2. I have no doubt that most people who have firearms will be able to hit a paper target. very possibly much better than I ever was able. What I think is the weak point in the whole plan is the ability of people to either initiate the use of the firearm on the street - decide that they have to use the firearm, draw, chamber, aim, fire - successfuly or the ability to wake up at 3 am, clearly understand the threat, pick up the secured firearm, load and/or chamber a round, look for the threat, and engage without threatening any family members or nieghbors by accident from an angle (say, from upstairs or downstairs) in the dark, etc. having seen how difficult it is to train somebody to do this, I honestly don't think that it can be internalized quickly, and frankly, I think that it fades quickly once learned - I don't wake up any where near as clear headed as I did 20 years ago.
> 
> a week or two ago, I heard a thump in the middle of the night. in 3-4 seconds, I was at the top of the stairs, having checked that my wife and son were where they were supposed to be, and I had a 22 inch hardwood nightstick in one hand and a 1 kilo fogger CS-gas cannister in the other. turns out that the sound was nothing, and after checking the house I went back to bed. but I would have to think that it would have taken me 30 seconds or more to have a firearm out, if not as much as a minute, and even then I would be very concerned about chambering a firearm having just woken from a deep sleep.
> 
> so please, anybody who has trained civillians in the use of firearms, please chip in and let me know your thoughts on these two points.
> 
> 
> 
> Based on my experience as a civilian training civilians in firearms personal protection, I am happy to try to answer your questions and share my thoughts.
> 
> As an instructor, I have introduced quite a few people to firearms. Many were anti-gun, or at least neutral on the subject. Many had never handled a gun before. Most were women. The women are the most interesting and easy to teach. They wanted training for a variety of reasons, some of which you can imagine; but the most surprising was that many had just had their first child. Women who had gone through life indifferent to their own safety would suddenly realize that they had a helpless life to protect now and they would reluctantly seek the most efficient means of doing so. I can say that in every case, from rape victims to new mothers, the women I introduced to firearms experienced an epiphany. Once they learned safety and the laws involving the use of leathal force, once they "knew the rules," the transformations I saw in these women were startling. Self-confidence and self-esteem skyrocketed. I call it "enlightened, rational empowerment." This, to me, is at the core of all gun issues. It is that notion of enlightened, rational empowerment that, once you have it, you are not likely to give up without a fight. And I believe that it is enlightened, rational empowerment that the State consciously and deliberately seeks to deprive you of through gun control.
> 
> Regarding your point 1, I would disagree with the notion that it takes weeks of basic training to render someone safe and effective with a handgun for personal protection. The rules of engagement and ranges are very different from the military. The main part of the training is classroom and involves safety, mindset, and the law, in addition to operation and maintenance. Safety training involves basic firearms safety, as well as safe storage. People new to firearms are scared, they listen. I spend time on the moral, legal, and civil consequences of over-penetration and recommend defensive ammo that minimizes that risk. I have people train at 12 feet for defensive shooting. Most can do that easily, and it is a distance that is with the bounds of "the reasonable man test" for defense. You would be hard pressed to shoot someone at 100 yards and claim an "immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or great bodily harm." That was a case I consulted on, that and the fact the guy was shot in the back riding away on a bicycle made me say it was probably not self-defense!
> 
> Regarding your point 2, that's a training issue. I address it through case studies and "what if's" and mental rehersals. Also, I tell people that the firearm is only a part of an entire system of self defense which includes alarms, dogs if possible, and other precautions. The trick is not to be taken by surprise at close quarters. This goes for the street, too. Hyper-awareness helps you have time and distance. If someone thinks there is someone in his or her home, I don't recommend that she go looking for him. That's a whole different thing. She needs to barricade or get behind an obstacle with her handgun, dial 911, and keep them on the line. Unless it was a "violent and tumultuous entry," I recommend verbally engaging the intruder from the fortified position before "opening fire" to eliminate the possiblity of shooting a good guy. And, still, no shooting unless there is "an immediate and otherwise unaviodable threat of death or great bodily harm to the innocent."
> 
> The laws of civilian use of lethal force are very cut and dried, with no "escalation of force" issues. Once someone understands those laws, the shoot/no shoot decision is easier. It's binary.
> 
> Regarding your scenario: "decide that they have to use the firearm, draw, chamber, aim, fire," forget the "chamber." I recommend keeping defensive firearms in ready conditions. "Chambering" takes two hands, you might only have one. The storage methods I recommend are totally child proof and offer 5 second access. In the case of you and your stick and CS, better than nothing but I wouldn't expose myself in that way. Were you back-lit? Someone with a gun might shoot you.
> 
> That gives you an overview; it is by no means complete. The good news is that there is nothing special about me. There are thousands of people like me offering similar training across the country. People who get carry permits usually are exposed to such training, or seek it out. People who are not immersed in the "gun culture" don't understand how seriously most law abiding Americans take their responsibility. I think that there are 300,000,000 privately owned firearms in the US, you usually only hear about the very few that are used illegally or negligently. Everyone I know who owns or carrys a gun for defense takes these issues _very_ seriously.
Click to expand...

thank you for your answers.

1. it seems that everybody who talks about firearms on these forums does take them pretty seriously, and the training you describe is very serious. I have always believed that if a person was willing to train well with a firearm and treat them responsilby then most of my objections would be covered.

2. that said - somebody out there isn't treating their firearms seriously, and a lot of weapons are being stolen, and people are being killed by accident.

3. I, myself, still am aprehensive about the level of training. not to critisize your training at all, but I find it hard to believe that enough saftey training can be instilled in that period of time. I have trained a lot of new soldiers (and here is my disclaimer - I have only ever trained a handful of people who weren't in the killing business) and I would say that getting a solid respect for the safety took a long time.

4. I still have my doubts about civillians ability to "Flip on" or "become operational" or how ever it would be refered to. I know how light a sleeper I was at 20, and how fast I could wake up and face a threat, and now, at 39 I can't see myself operating a firearm at 3 am within a few seconds of waking up. and that is with a hell of a lot of muscle memory and training.

5. a good part of my experience comes from what you might call the "bad guy" side - suprising somebody on the street or in his house. most of these people were pretty highly trained, all young and at the top of their game, all very highly strung, all very well armed. in my personal experience none was able to create a threat to the people attacking him, and certainly never able to influence the outcome of the conflict - by that I mean, I, personally, have never seen anybody successfully draw or get to a weapon on his bedside table or under his bed. I know a few times when it has happened, but it is pretty rare, and it still didn't influnce the outcome of the conflict. that is one of the reasons that my experience has led me to be critical of a persons abilty to influence the result with a firearm.

6. I imagine that you recomend to people to lock their firearms by their bed in a pushbutton safe, which would probrably be the safest and fastest way of accessing. if I had a handgun at home, that is what I would do. I would have trouble chambering a round and leaving it chambered - that is a major commandment in the IDF.

7. my scenario - one of the things I like about my weapons is that I can run through practices in my house, where I will need it. it isn't a perfect system, but, for instance, I know what do to the unusual angle of the staircase I can see people coming up about 4 or 5 steps before they can see my me, and I know the the staircase isn't back lit. also, due to the layout, if I fire gas down the staircase it will fog the whole entrance of the house. the other thing is that I can access it quickly, and I can't kill anybody by mistake. as you mentioned, the weakness is that I could get shot. there hasn't been a home invasion in my county by an armed robber in the past 3 years at least. there were two last year in a nearby county, but they were both of people involved in the drug trade. so I am literally not taking into acount the risk of a intruder armed with a firearm. I know that that will strike you as shortsighted or an unessasary risk - but my calculation is that it is so unlikly that I do not want the unessasary risk assosiated with gun ownership.

8. my personal feeling is that the hyperawareness is probrably more valuable than the shooting, but that comes back to the overall argument.

basically - I am not arguing against firearms in the hands of people. I am questioning the value of firearms in the hands of people, and I am questioning if people are taking care of the firearms correctly.

I see good 3 reasons to have firearms in civillian hands - to protect the civil rights of civillians from tyrany or invasion, to hunt and for self defence. it is my belief that most people, while they claim to have firearms for one or more of these, do not prepare well for any, let alone all.

and I agree, that part of a gentlemans position in society is to protect himself, his rights, his family, friends, community and country - but I think that the basis for this should be within an organizaed framework.

have a nice weekend people.


----------



## globetrotter

stewart,

1. yes, I was rude. yes, I appologized. if you look back at the thread, you can see that maybe it was understandable that I was a little exasberated at that point, even though LS was the incorrect target. 

2. thank you, I know about vaults. like proper training and prepration, I believe that not enough americans use them. I may be wrong. everybody who posts here seems to treat their firearms very well, but somehow lots and lots of firearms are getting stolen. 

3. for me, one of the the main reasons that I have sticks and gas is so that I don't have to lock them. I can leave them very handy, and I don't have to worry about them. my son has wacked me with a rolling pin, I doubt that he can kill me with my stick. and if he shoots off some gas, he probrably won't do it again. likewise, if it gets stolen, or even if they get used against me, I don't have to worry too much. 

4. most importanly, I seriously doubt that most people do the type of prep and training that you talk about. I may be wrong. most of the people I know who have firearms say a similar thing - "well, I'm safe, I have a luger and a .38 and a .45 and a .44 magnum and a .22 and a 12 guage and a 9 mm and a chinese ak-47, so I am well prepared" and then you say "so, what will you use if you get attacked?" and they say "well, I have enough, I don't need to think about it now". that, to me, is not being ready. now, I may be wrong, but I don't know.

5. I have said this enough, so I will say it gently and as politly as possible - your experience may be that people get up and operational easily in their houses in the middle of the night. my experience has not been like that. my experience is that it is hard enough to get 20 year old fit soldiers to react well at 3 am. I think that for a 40 year old person who has never served a day in his life under arms to operate a firearm in the middle of the night correctly would be pretty heroic.


----------



## mstewarthm

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> stewart,
> 
> 1. yes, I was rude. yes, I appologized. if you look back at the thread, you can see that maybe it was understandable that I was a little exasberated at that point, even though LS was the incorrect target.
> 
> 2. thank you, I know about vaults. like proper training and prepration, I believe that not enough americans use them. I may be wrong. everybody who posts here seems to treat their firearms very well, but somehow lots and lots of firearms are getting stolen.
> 
> 3. for me, one of the the main reasons that I have sticks and gas is so that I don't have to lock them. I can leave them very handy, and I don't have to worry about them. my son has wacked me with a rolling pin, I doubt that he can kill me with my stick. and if he shoots off some gas, he probrably won't do it again. likewise, if it gets stolen, or even if they get used against me, I don't have to worry too much.
> 
> 4. most importanly, I seriously doubt that most people do the type of prep and training that you talk about. I may be wrong. most of the people I know who have firearms say a similar thing - "well, I'm safe, I have a luger and a .38 and a .45 and a .44 magnum and a .22 and a 12 guage and a 9 mm and a chinese ak-47, so I am well prepared" and then you say "so, what will you use if you get attacked?" and they say "well, I have enough, I don't need to think about it now". that, to me, is not being ready. now, I may be wrong, but I don't know.
> 
> 5. I have said this enough, so I will say it gently and as politly as possible - your experience may be that people get up and operational easily in their houses in the middle of the night. my experience has not been like that. my experience is that it is hard enough to get 20 year old fit soldiers to react well at 3 am. I think that for a 40 year old person who has never served a day in his life under arms to operate a firearm in the middle of the night correctly would be pretty heroic.


Given what I've seen reported from some of our soldiers in country in Iraq about their training and the ridiculous (always unloaded) rules they have for readiness in the Green Zone and on bases, I'm afraid we'd have to say the same as well about our soldiers currently who are in harms way, may the Lord protect them.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Given what I've seen reported from some of our soldiers in country in Iraq about their training and the ridiculous (always unloaded) rules they have for readiness in the Green Zone and on bases, I'm afraid we'd have to say the same as well about our soldiers currently who are in harms way, may the Lord protect them.
> 
> _


_

the thing is, if you spend 24/7 for years with a rifle and ammo, you are bound to get sloppy, espetially when you have a large group of soldiers, many of whom are not combat soldiers. it does make sense to have rifles unloaded on base. the trick is in training. when I was 20, I could wake up in the middle of the night, get to my position and have my rifle operational in a matter of seconds. but I did almost a year of "basic" training, and for most of that, I would get woken up in the middle of the night a few times just for training.

and this gets back to my point - I am sure that a lot of the people around who have firearms in thier houses, for 30 years or more, get sloppy about how they store them, about how the train with them, etc. and that is what leads to weapons getting stolen or people getting shot by accident._


----------



## globetrotter

I just thought of another question - do any of you have personal knowledge of anyone, who learned how to operate the firearm as a civillian, who has used a firearm to positivly influence the outcome of an assult or robery in their favor?

Liberty ship? anyone else?


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

After finding a muddy footprint on her back porch and hearing glass break, Susan Buxton was convinced that someone was in her home. According to police, she searched each closet until, finally, as she pulled open the one nearest her front door, she saw a manâ€™s face peering out from underneath a coat. â€œShh,â€ he pleaded. Buxton told her granddaughter to call 9-1-1 and ordered the intruder to lie flat on the floor, or sheâ€™d shoot. The home invader then did something he likely regrets: He reached for the 66-year-old womanâ€™s .38-cal. revolver. She fired once, hitting the intruderâ€™s leg. â€œOw, you shot me!â€ he cried out before fleeing. The man, whom police say eluded them by hiding in Buxtonâ€™s home after stealing a pickup truck, was apprehended on a balcony a few houses away. â€œIf I didnâ€™t have a gun to protect myself, I probably wouldnâ€™t be here,â€ Buxton said. (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Arlington, TX, 11/10/05

Harry Carpenter suffers from pulmonary fibrosis and wears oxygen tubes for much of the day, but that didnâ€™t stop him from fending off two knife-wielding burglars. Police say two young men barged into his home, one forcing him at knifepoint to sit on a couch while the other demanded money from his wife, Jackie. When Jackie pretended to faint, Harryâ€™s captor went to investigate. Harry sneaked into the laundry room where he kept an unloaded .22-cal. rifle heâ€™s owned since his youth. â€œI shot many a squirrel with that thing,â€ he said later. The intruder returned before Harry could load his firearm, but Harry racked the bolt home as if it were loaded. â€œHe yelled out, â€˜Letâ€™s go, heâ€™s got a gun!â€™â€ Harry recalled. The suspects fled the scene and were being sought by police. (Savannah Morning News, Savannah, GA, 11/19/05

George Swita, who served in Gen. Pattonâ€™s Third Army in World War II, brought back a German Luger that was on a truck full of captured German arms. Though he kept the pistol clean, he no longer used it for target practice. He began carrying it between his home and vehicle, however, after an assailant hit him in the face and stole $60 from his wallet. It was a decision that may have saved his life. Police say an attacker grabbed Swita around the neck as he unlocked his front door. Swita fired two shots, hitting the crook in the head and killing him. â€œWas I scared? You bet, both times!â€ Swita said. (The Vindicator, Youngstown, OH, 11/01/05

Police say three men broke into a coupleâ€™s residence with baseball bats and a gun in search of prescription drugs, but all they left with was a lesson from an armed citizen. Two of the men allegedly ordered the couple and their visiting family members to the floor while a third suspect stole the medications. Meanwhile, a family member in another room heard the commotion and armed himself with a firearm. He entered the room and fired several shots at the intruder who was holding the victimâ€™s relatives at gunpoint, hitting him once in the torso. Two men fled in a car and were apprehended by police. The wounded man was found collapsed in the street. The trio faces charges of home invasion, robbery and kidnapping. â€œThey were very threatening to the family,â€ said St. Johns County Sheriff David Shoar. â€œ[The man who was shot] had the gun to the wifeâ€™s head.â€ (The St. Augustine Record, St. Augustine, FL, 11/05/05

After an armed burglar stole $100 from his home, Angel Benitez took a self-defense class and obtained a concealed-carry permit. â€œThis year, Iâ€™m going to prepare myself,â€ Benitez recalled saying to himself. And, according to police, he did just that when he heard the screams of his friend, Carmen Ramos. Benitez found a man pointing a gun at Ramos. â€œWhen I saw the gun, I fired,â€ said Benitez. â€œHe could have killed my friend.â€ Ramosâ€™ daughter, who was watching television, thought her mother had been shot, but then saw the burglar stumble out the door. â€œHe was yelling â€˜Ow, ow!â€™â€ she recalled. A man with a gunshot wound later arrived at the hospital, but police were still investigating whether he was the intruder. (The Hartford Courant, Hartford, CT, 11/18/05

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## whnay.

https://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=72148

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## Fogey

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> https://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=72148
> 
> ___________
> 
> "My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income."
> ~Errol Flynn


The perfect Christmas gift for that violent astronomer in your life.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> https://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=72148
> 
> ___________
> 
> "My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income."
> ~Errol Flynn


very nice, bill


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Alexander Kabbaz_
> 
> After finding a muddy footprint on her back porch and hearing glass break, Susan Buxton was convinced that someone was in her home. According to police, she searched each closet until, finally, as she pulled open the one nearest her front door, she saw a manâ€™s face peering out from underneath a coat. â€œShh,â€ he pleaded. Buxton told her granddaughter to call 9-1-1 and ordered the intruder to lie flat on the floor, or sheâ€™d shoot. The home invader then did something he likely regrets: He reached for the 66-year-old womanâ€™s .38-cal. revolver. She fired once, hitting the intruderâ€™s leg. â€œOw, you shot me!â€ he cried out before fleeing. The man, whom police say eluded them by hiding in Buxtonâ€™s home after stealing a pickup truck, was apprehended on a balcony a few houses away. â€œIf I didnâ€™t have a gun to protect myself, I probably wouldnâ€™t be here,â€ Buxton said. (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Arlington, TX, 11/10/05
> 
> Harry Carpenter suffers from pulmonary fibrosis and wears oxygen tubes for much of the day, but that didnâ€™t stop him from fending off two knife-wielding burglars. Police say two young men barged into his home, one forcing him at knifepoint to sit on a couch while the other demanded money from his wife, Jackie. When Jackie pretended to faint, Harryâ€™s captor went to investigate. Harry sneaked into the laundry room where he kept an unloaded .22-cal. rifle heâ€™s owned since his youth. â€œI shot many a squirrel with that thing,â€ he said later. The intruder returned before Harry could load his firearm, but Harry racked the bolt home as if it were loaded. â€œHe yelled out, â€˜Letâ€™s go, heâ€™s got a gun!â€™â€ Harry recalled. The suspects fled the scene and were being sought by police. (Savannah Morning News, Savannah, GA, 11/19/05
> 
> George Swita, who served in Gen. Pattonâ€™s Third Army in World War II, brought back a German Luger that was on a truck full of captured German arms. Though he kept the pistol clean, he no longer used it for target practice. He began carrying it between his home and vehicle, however, after an assailant hit him in the face and stole $60 from his wallet. It was a decision that may have saved his life. Police say an attacker grabbed Swita around the neck as he unlocked his front door. Swita fired two shots, hitting the crook in the head and killing him. â€œWas I scared? You bet, both times!â€ Swita said. (The Vindicator, Youngstown, OH, 11/01/05
> 
> Police say three men broke into a coupleâ€™s residence with baseball bats and a gun in search of prescription drugs, but all they left with was a lesson from an armed citizen. Two of the men allegedly ordered the couple and their visiting family members to the floor while a third suspect stole the medications. Meanwhile, a family member in another room heard the commotion and armed himself with a firearm. He entered the room and fired several shots at the intruder who was holding the victimâ€™s relatives at gunpoint, hitting him once in the torso. Two men fled in a car and were apprehended by police. The wounded man was found collapsed in the street. The trio faces charges of home invasion, robbery and kidnapping. â€œThey were very threatening to the family,â€ said St. Johns County Sheriff David Shoar. â€œ[The man who was shot] had the gun to the wifeâ€™s head.â€ (The St. Augustine Record, St. Augustine, FL, 11/05/05
> 
> After an armed burglar stole $100 from his home, Angel Benitez took a self-defense class and obtained a concealed-carry permit. â€œThis year, Iâ€™m going to prepare myself,â€ Benitez recalled saying to himself. And, according to police, he did just that when he heard the screams of his friend, Carmen Ramos. Benitez found a man pointing a gun at Ramos. â€œWhen I saw the gun, I fired,â€ said Benitez. â€œHe could have killed my friend.â€ Ramosâ€™ daughter, who was watching television, thought her mother had been shot, but then saw the burglar stumble out the door. â€œHe was yelling â€˜Ow, ow!â€™â€ she recalled. A man with a gunshot wound later arrived at the hospital, but police were still investigating whether he was the intruder. (The Hartford Courant, Hartford, CT, 11/18/05
> 
> *https://www.CustomShirt1.com
> 
> Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
> * Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
> * Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


alex - thank you. by personal knowledge, I meant if anybody had themselves, or had a friend or student actually use a firearm to influnce an attack. I know that both sides of the argument have pleanty of examples on the web.


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> I just thought of another question - do any of you have personal knowledge of anyone, who learned how to operate the firearm as a civillian, who has used a firearm to positivly influence the outcome of an assult or robery in their favor?
> 
> Liberty ship? anyone else?


First, let me say that the level of training you find in many American civilians greatly surpasses what you find in most police departments and even the military with the exception of the most elite small units. Generally we have greater and freer access to firearms when we are not in the military than when we are, and many of us take advantage of some excellent training programs. A couple of years ago I got together with some associates and shot an IDPA match against the SWAT team of our State Patrol who happened to be practicing at the same range. We won.

Regarding your question, I personally know dozens of such people. I'm too lazy at the moment to write any up, but I did personally know this guy, Brian Rigsby, and I found his story on line with a quick google. No charges filed against Rigsby or his friend; one bad guy DRT, the other wounded and charged. I believe this version of the story first ran in The American Rifleman. I suspect there might have been a different outcome had he relied on a stick and a can of CS rather than a Mini-14! Lots of other stories on this site, link follows:

563. They Didn't Plan On Leaving Witnesses

After saying goodbye to his wife, Mary, Brian Rigsby left their home outside Atlanta, Georgia, to pick up his friend Tom Styer for an impromptu camping trip on the afternoon of Saturday, November 24, 1990.

Getting a late start and making a few wrong turns in the Oconee National Forest, the two friends didn't arrive at their campsite until well after dark. They'd chosen a spot convenient to the public rifle range in Oconee, and eagerly looked forward to some target practice the next day.

By the light of a lantern, the friends pitched a tent and then built a campfire. They were settling in for the night when they heard the distinctive growl of a diesel engine approaching. Shortly thereafter, a truck pulled up, right into the middle of the camp. Rigsby noticed that it was a work truck, with the name of a business painted on the side.

Two men got out and introduced themselves, explaining that they were driving around to meet people and help out. Exceedingly polite, the visitors insisted on helping Rigsby and Styer cut more firewood. During their hour-long stay, the courteous duo depicted themselves as long-time residents of the area, boasting about their extensive knowledge of the surrounding woods.

Rigsby remembers feeling uncomfortable with the two men, and relieved when they finally left. He even considered moving the camp to another location. But before any firm decision could be reached, Rigsby and Styer heard the truck's diesel engine once again driving down the road toward their camp. It was the only road in.

The truck stopped before reaching the camp, and its engine abruptly cut off. In the quiet that followed, Rigsby and Styer heard the faint crackle of leaves rustling as their former visitors stole toward the campsite.

When the two friends realized they were being stalked, each grabbed his gun and made sure it was loaded. Rigsby took cover behind his truck, armed with a Ruger Mini-14 with a 30-round magazine, while Styer knelt in the tent's shadow with his .45 pistol at the ready.

Rigsby was shocked and filled with disbelief. "I tried to listen for the men," he recalls, "but couldn't hear much over the sound of my breathing and the pounding of my heart."

It was Styer that saw them first. One of the men slid suddenly into the light cast by the campfire, pointing his double-barrelled shotgun in Rigsby's direction. Afraid he would actually shoot, Rigsby kept his head down, and heard Styer ask the man why he came back with a gun. In reply, the man swung the shotgun toward Styer and answered, "I'm going to kill you."

Styer instructed the intruder to drop his gun. Instead, the intruder fired, hitting Styer in the legs.

Rigsby remembers seeing the front sight of his Mini-14 centered on the assailant's chest. He fired twice. Quickly swinging the rifle toward the second attacker's position, Rigsby fired six or seven additional rounds, determining his point of aim by the flash from the other man 's muzzle against the blackness of the surrounding forest.

Partially blinded by the flash from his own muzzle, Rigsby dropped back down behind his truck. He looked underneath the frame, across the campsite. Seeing no one, he yelled for help. There was no answer. He called out to Styer, but heard no response.

Rigsby knew that the first attacker was down and no longer a threat. But the other gunman was out there, somewhere. Rigsby strained his ears, trying to hear any movement in the nearby trees. He heard nothing. He looked around the camp and beyond it into the woods, but still saw no one. Waiting a few minutes, he called again to Styer, but his friend still did not answer.

Rigsby then began to move slowly and cautiously backward, away from the camp. Seeing a light through the trees, he started toward it. Amazingly, he found a camp filled with hunters about 300 yds. away.

One of the hunters hurried away to call the police, who responded and immediately placed Rigsby under arrest. They returned to the scene of the attack and found Styer, still alive.

The shotgun-wielding attacker had been hit twice and died at the scene. His accomplice was also hit twice, but survived. Both carried 12-ga. scatterguns loaded with 3" magnum buckshot, and both had fired their weapons at Rigsby and Styer.

The two friends gave statements to the police, whereupon Rigsby was released from custody and Styer was taken to the local hospital. In his statement, the surviving gunman admitted he and his accomplice had returned to rob the campers, a crime they had planned while smoking crack cocaine following their initial visit to the campsite. The surviving gunman was subsequently charged with aggravated assault, convicted and released on probation.

Later, an officer told Brian Rigsby and Tom Styer that police were convinced the pair of attackers would have murdered both campers; when introducing themselves, the deceptively courteous men had used their real names and drove a truck owned by their employer. Apparently, they didn't plan to leave any witnesses to their crime.

(Ed. Note: Although Brian Rigsby's Mini-14 was not on the list of so-called "assault weapons" prohibited by the 1994 gun ban, with a few cosmetic changes, it would meet the criteria established therein by the 103rd Congress. All magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds were banned.)

March, 1996


----------



## Kav

I've read with dismay the insults to our national mythic character, the cowboy. Britain has the Arthurian Cycle, Greece the Iliad, Germany Beowulf. In fact, every culture from Tlingit to !Ngong have a story explaining who we are, where we came from and the adventures with lessons of morallity and conduct. When you people are finished making maori faces and slapping your breasts you might want to research the 'code of the west.' There was one, and while we had our own Paris and Mordred, Galahad wasn't far behind them on the trail. Gary Cooper sits a saddle a might taller than Monty Python with their coconuts. And, like the Coop said, should you reply" smile when you say that."


----------



## mokita

Originally posted by Liberty Ship



> quote:First, let me say that the level of training you find in many American civilians greatly surpasses what you find in most police departments and even the military with the exception of the most elite small units. Generally we have greater and freer access to firearms when we are not in the military than when we are, and many of us take advantage of some excellent training programs. A couple of years ago I got together with some associates and shot an IDPA match against the SWAT team of our State Patrol who happened to be practicing at the same range. We won.


That has been my experience too, but it is based on my hanging out at a gun club and shooting about four times per week. People who don't spend any time shooting are obviously not going to be any more proficient at it than I would be at golf.

Related ... my private gun club allows various LEO's to use the facilities. Virtually all of the safety concerns we have had have been traced to these non-member police using the ranges. Another gun club in our area had a round get off site. It went through the bedroom window where there was a child. Fortunately it stopped in a wall without hitting anyone. Ballistic analysis identified the cop who fired it, while he was a guest at that club.


----------



## Kav

The rather menacing weapon shown above is a variation on rifles built around the famed .50 BMG cartridge.Theres an Interesting story there too. When it first came out people screamed how terrorists would use it to shoot down airplanes. A few have been siezed from a few right wing militias and narcotics criminals. The vast majority became rather expensive target rifles. Now the .50 BMG is a fine round, but was never noted for it's sub minute accuracy. But these target shooters started doing something really anti social- they slowly developed highly accurate match loads in that near alchemist's pastime called reloading. I don't know,I nearly went broke saving money on cartridges reloading for such monsters as my 286 grain 9.3x62 mauser. A friend had a Sharps .45 that practically took a whole can of powder, or so it seems. So seeing match bullets wieghing in at 600 grains and comprable components left me wondering if their kids were being properly fed. Soon these guys in cammies started dropping by. No, not Idaho Militias, but real green army guys from our sniper programme. Those civilian developed loads are being used in Afghanistan and Iraq against the bad guys to devastating effect. meanwhile, our action hero governor from Austria signed legislation classing .50 BMG chambered firearms as assault rifles with all the legal ramifications and restrictions they have. I can't tell you how warm and fuzzy I felt knowing the Terminator just made driveby less likely


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> I just thought of another question - do any of you have personal knowledge of anyone, who learned how to operate the firearm as a civillian, who has used a firearm to positivly influence the outcome of an assult or robery in their favor?
> 
> Liberty ship? anyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> First, let me say that the level of training you find in many American civilians greatly surpasses what you find in most police departments and even the military with the exception of the most elite small units. Generally we have greater and freer access to firearms when we are not in the military than when we are, and many of us take advantage of some excellent training programs. A couple of years ago I got together with some associates and shot an IDPA match against the SWAT team of our State Patrol who happened to be practicing at the same range. We won.
> 
> Regarding your question, I personally know dozens of such people. I'm too lazy at the moment to write any up, but I did personally know this guy, Brian Rigsby, and I found his story on line with a quick google. No charges filed against Rigsby or his friend; one bad guy DRT, the other wounded and charged. I believe this version of the story first ran in The American Rifleman. I suspect there might have been a different outcome had he relied on a stick and a can of CS rather than a Mini-14! Lots of other stories on this site, link follows:
> 
> 563. They Didn't Plan On Leaving Witnesses
> 
> After saying goodbye to his wife, Mary, Brian Rigsby left their home outside Atlanta, Georgia, to pick up his friend Tom Styer for an impromptu camping trip on the afternoon of Saturday, November 24, 1990.
> 
> Getting a late start and making a few wrong turns in the Oconee National Forest, the two friends didn't arrive at their campsite until well after dark. They'd chosen a spot convenient to the public rifle range in Oconee, and eagerly looked forward to some target practice the next day.
> 
> By the light of a lantern, the friends pitched a tent and then built a campfire. They were settling in for the night when they heard the distinctive growl of a diesel engine approaching. Shortly thereafter, a truck pulled up, right into the middle of the camp. Rigsby noticed that it was a work truck, with the name of a business painted on the side.
> 
> Two men got out and introduced themselves, explaining that they were driving around to meet people and help out. Exceedingly polite, the visitors insisted on helping Rigsby and Styer cut more firewood. During their hour-long stay, the courteous duo depicted themselves as long-time residents of the area, boasting about their extensive knowledge of the surrounding woods.
> 
> Rigsby remembers feeling uncomfortable with the two men, and relieved when they finally left. He even considered moving the camp to another location. But before any firm decision could be reached, Rigsby and Styer heard the truck's diesel engine once again driving down the road toward their camp. It was the only road in.
> 
> The truck stopped before reaching the camp, and its engine abruptly cut off. In the quiet that followed, Rigsby and Styer heard the faint crackle of leaves rustling as their former visitors stole toward the campsite.
> 
> When the two friends realized they were being stalked, each grabbed his gun and made sure it was loaded. Rigsby took cover behind his truck, armed with a Ruger Mini-14 with a 30-round magazine, while Styer knelt in the tent's shadow with his .45 pistol at the ready.
> 
> Rigsby was shocked and filled with disbelief. "I tried to listen for the men," he recalls, "but couldn't hear much over the sound of my breathing and the pounding of my heart."
> 
> It was Styer that saw them first. One of the men slid suddenly into the light cast by the campfire, pointing his double-barrelled shotgun in Rigsby's direction. Afraid he would actually shoot, Rigsby kept his head down, and heard Styer ask the man why he came back with a gun. In reply, the man swung the shotgun toward Styer and answered, "I'm going to kill you."
> 
> Styer instructed the intruder to drop his gun. Instead, the intruder fired, hitting Styer in the legs.
> 
> Rigsby remembers seeing the front sight of his Mini-14 centered on the assailant's chest. He fired twice. Quickly swinging the rifle toward the second attacker's position, Rigsby fired six or seven additional rounds, determining his point of aim by the flash from the other man 's muzzle against the blackness of the surrounding forest.
> 
> Partially blinded by the flash from his own muzzle, Rigsby dropped back down behind his truck. He looked underneath the frame, across the campsite. Seeing no one, he yelled for help. There was no answer. He called out to Styer, but heard no response.
> 
> Rigsby knew that the first attacker was down and no longer a threat. But the other gunman was out there, somewhere. Rigsby strained his ears, trying to hear any movement in the nearby trees. He heard nothing. He looked around the camp and beyond it into the woods, but still saw no one. Waiting a few minutes, he called again to Styer, but his friend still did not answer.
> 
> Rigsby then began to move slowly and cautiously backward, away from the camp. Seeing a light through the trees, he started toward it. Amazingly, he found a camp filled with hunters about 300 yds. away.
> 
> One of the hunters hurried away to call the police, who responded and immediately placed Rigsby under arrest. They returned to the scene of the attack and found Styer, still alive.
> 
> The shotgun-wielding attacker had been hit twice and died at the scene. His accomplice was also hit twice, but survived. Both carried 12-ga. scatterguns loaded with 3" magnum buckshot, and both had fired their weapons at Rigsby and Styer.
> 
> The two friends gave statements to the police, whereupon Rigsby was released from custody and Styer was taken to the local hospital. In his statement, the surviving gunman admitted he and his accomplice had returned to rob the campers, a crime they had planned while smoking crack cocaine following their initial visit to the campsite. The surviving gunman was subsequently charged with aggravated assault, convicted and released on probation.
> 
> Later, an officer told Brian Rigsby and Tom Styer that police were convinced the pair of attackers would have murdered both campers; when introducing themselves, the deceptively courteous men had used their real names and drove a truck owned by their employer. Apparently, they didn't plan to leave any witnesses to their crime.
> 
> (Ed. Note: Although Brian Rigsby's Mini-14 was not on the list of so-called "assault weapons" prohibited by the 1994 gun ban, with a few cosmetic changes, it would meet the criteria established therein by the 103rd Congress. All magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds were banned.)
> 
> March, 1996
Click to expand...

LS - I know that I am really going to piss you off here. but what would have happened if your friend and his friend had left the site, gone off into the woods and waited? think about that for a second? and, maybe this seems like the cowardly thing to do, and maybe it is - what saved your friends life wasn't so much the firearm, but his being aware and getting away from the site. two stoned guys wouldn't have a chance in hell of finding them in the bush at night. I'm not saying that I would have done that, maybe I would, maybe not, but it seems to me that what saved thier life was the awareness more than the firearms.


----------



## globetrotter

I am sure that there are many examples of people who have used firearms to stop home invasions and even robberies on the street. and here we may part company in terms of what we believe - I still find it ahrd to believe that a person can be tought to operate a firearm to the right level to infunce the outcome of an encounter and to be safe enough. That, basically, is an artifact of my experiences. you, obviously, have had your experiences that lead you to believe something else.

I guess that it also comes down to the idea of what are the skills needed - for instance you talk about beating the swat team at shooting. well, that must have been some pretty good shooting on your part, good for you and your friends. I am not sure that the ability to hit a paper target is the most important part of shooting, just like with flatsix's example- I don't think muscle twitch is the most important part of drawing a pistol. 

and you are definitly right - I don't think that soldier's and other pro's have the time and energy, or desire to put that much effort into their guns. for me, when I was in that business, it was a very small part of what I was involved in. frankly, 99 percent of the ammo I have fired in my life was from 3 models of firearm, all production, nothing really special. I have fired very few types of firearms, really. and, although in my time I was a prety good shot, I get the feeling that a well rested civillian with a really good weapon could certainly outshoot me with paper targets, even at the top of my game. 

the flip side of that is a lot of intangibles - and here I think flatsix sees this as some type of bragging or feeling of supriority - there are a huge number of intangible variables involved in the ability to win a firefight. these can be learned, but I don't believe that they can be learned in a short time, and often some people will never get them. 

I always found the people who were so fascinated with it, without being part of is as very bizzare. I was in that line of business becuase my country needed me, and because I was able. I happened to be good at it and enjoy it. I found it always very strange people who had no real need for the skills trying to aquire the skills, or pretend that they had them. 


anyway - as I said - I am happy that if people are going to play with firearms, at least there are people like you to teach them not to shoot through my walls, and hopefully not to let their firearms be stolen, so thank you for that.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> Originally posted by Liberty Ship
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:First, let me say that the level of training you find in many American civilians greatly surpasses what you find in most police departments and even the military with the exception of the most elite small units. Generally we have greater and freer access to firearms when we are not in the military than when we are, and many of us take advantage of some excellent training programs. A couple of years ago I got together with some associates and shot an IDPA match against the SWAT team of our State Patrol who happened to be practicing at the same range. We won.
> 
> 
> 
> That has been my experience too, but it is based on my hanging out at a gun club and shooting about four times per week. People who don't spend any time shooting are obviously not going to be any more proficient at it than I would be at golf.
> 
> Related ... my private gun club allows various LEO's to use the facilities. Virtually all of the safety concerns we have had have been traced to these non-member police using the ranges. Another gun club in our area had a round get off site. It went through the bedroom window where there was a child. Fortunately it stopped in a wall without hitting anyone. Ballistic analysis identified the cop who fired it, while he was a guest at that club.
Click to expand...

good for you for taking this so seriously. I can't imagine, honestly, why anyone would shoot 4 times a week without a need, but that is a personal issue. we each have our own tastes and hobbies.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> The rather menacing weapon shown above is a variation on rifles built around the famed .50 BMG cartridge.Theres an Interesting story there too. When it first came out people screamed how terrorists would use it to shoot down airplanes. A few have been siezed from a few right wing militias and narcotics criminals. The vast majority became rather expensive target rifles. Now the .50 BMG is a fine round, but was never noted for it's sub minute accuracy. But these target shooters started doing something really anti social- they slowly developed highly accurate match loads in that near alchemist's pastime called reloading. I don't know,I nearly went broke saving money on cartridges reloading for such monsters as my 286 grain 9.3x62 mauser. A friend had a Sharps .45 that practically took a whole can of powder, or so it seems. So seeing match bullets wieghing in at 600 grains and comprable components left me wondering if their kids were being properly fed. Soon these guys in cammies started dropping by. No, not Idaho Militias, but real green army guys from our sniper programme. Those civilian developed loads are being used in Afghanistan and Iraq against the bad guys to devastating effect. meanwhile, our action hero governor from Austria signed legislation classing .50 BMG chambered firearms as assault rifles with all the legal ramifications and restrictions they have. I can't tell you how warm and fuzzy I felt knowing the Terminator just made driveby less likely


I can't imagine why any civillian would want a 50 cal rifle. aside from the lack of need, the potential for accident is pretty big - those rounds fly quite a way, and when they hit a person, it isnt pretty.


----------



## Kav

'Needing' a .50BMG rifle is on par with my 'needing' a Lamborghini Countach. I could successfully argue by one set of values that such a car is wastefull of petrol and requires superior training, registration and licensing to safely operate. A rational society would solely have fuel efficient econo boxes like the VW bug with emasculated performance and superior crash resistance. That same society might decide any other number of individual personal pursuits harm the collective and say no.I think that was theoretically tried once. Care to trade in your 120s and Aldens for a Mao Jacket and flip flops? The last time I glanced at their gunshow table, a base system STARTED at $5000. Ammunition at best is a meal at McDonalds everytime you pull the trigger. Shooting can be a neccessary skill and/or a hobby. Some people collect pocket pistols like a pipe smoker Savinellis and Dunhills. Others pursue the Alchemy of reloading.I actually read an article once on reloading the .25 ACP. Assuming inevitable violence by virtue of owning a firearm is like the patrol car pulling that Countach over doing 25 MPH in a school zone.


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> I just thought of another question - do any of you have personal knowledge of anyone, who learned how to operate the firearm as a civillian, who has used a firearm to positivly influence the outcome of an assult or robery in their favor?
> 
> Liberty ship? anyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> ...snip...
> 
> The two friends gave statements to the police, whereupon Rigsby was released from custody and Styer was taken to the local hospital. In his statement, the surviving gunman admitted he and his accomplice had returned to rob the campers, a crime they had planned while smoking crack cocaine following their initial visit to the campsite. The surviving gunman was subsequently charged with aggravated assault, convicted and released on probation.
> 
> Later, an officer told Brian Rigsby and Tom Styer that police were convinced the pair of attackers would have murdered both campers; when introducing themselves, the deceptively courteous men had used their real names and drove a truck owned by their employer. Apparently, they didn't plan to leave any witnesses to their crime.
> 
> (Ed. Note: Although Brian Rigsby's Mini-14 was not on the list of so-called "assault weapons" prohibited by the 1994 gun ban, with a few cosmetic changes, it would meet the criteria established therein by the 103rd Congress. All magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds were banned.)
> 
> March, 1996
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LS - I know that I am really going to piss you off here. but what would have happened if your friend and his friend had left the site, gone off into the woods and waited? think about that for a second? and, maybe this seems like the cowardly thing to do, and maybe it is - what saved your friends life wasn't so much the firearm, but his being aware and getting away from the site. two stoned guys wouldn't have a chance in hell of finding them in the bush at night. I'm not saying that I would have done that, maybe I would, maybe not, but it seems to me that what saved thier life was the awareness more than the firearms.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, you won't piss me off discussing hypotheticals. Hindsight being 20/20 maybe retreating into the woods would have been better, knowing as we know now that there were still only the two guys. But retreating in the dark from a terrain you "own" into an unknown terrain populated by unknown additional perps has its own risks. One thing I teach is the "Plus One" rule. That is, always assume that there is one more attacker than you can account for. If you are in a convenience store and two guys with ski masks come in with guns, immediately try to figure out who amongst the customers is the "plus one," or, if you make it outside during the hold up, immediately start looking for the "plus one." Likewise if you are in your camp and decide to retreat, rememer that you might be running blindly into a "Plus n" ambush.

Generally, if someone survives, I don't second guess him or her. I met one woman who had handled herself impeccably during an abduction and kidnapping. I could not have improved one iota on her (untrained) instinctual performance and timely introduction of a firearm. I think the fact that she was a trauma nurse helped her settle into "the zone" when it was called for. Yet she was so shaken that she, quite correctly, came to me to train her the entire shift of nurses who she worked with. I kept telling her she did everything right. It took her hearing my presentation to believe it.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> I just thought of another question - do any of you have personal knowledge of anyone, who learned how to operate the firearm as a civillian, who has used a firearm to positivly influence the outcome of an assult or robery in their favor?
> 
> Liberty ship? anyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> ...snip...
> 
> The two friends gave statements to the police, whereupon Rigsby was released from custody and Styer was taken to the local hospital. In his statement, the surviving gunman admitted he and his accomplice had returned to rob the campers, a crime they had planned while smoking crack cocaine following their initial visit to the campsite. The surviving gunman was subsequently charged with aggravated assault, convicted and released on probation.
> 
> Later, an officer told Brian Rigsby and Tom Styer that police were convinced the pair of attackers would have murdered both campers; when introducing themselves, the deceptively courteous men had used their real names and drove a truck owned by their employer. Apparently, they didn't plan to leave any witnesses to their crime.
> 
> (Ed. Note: Although Brian Rigsby's Mini-14 was not on the list of so-called "assault weapons" prohibited by the 1994 gun ban, with a few cosmetic changes, it would meet the criteria established therein by the 103rd Congress. All magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds were banned.)
> 
> March, 1996
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LS - I know that I am really going to piss you off here. but what would have happened if your friend and his friend had left the site, gone off into the woods and waited? think about that for a second? and, maybe this seems like the cowardly thing to do, and maybe it is - what saved your friends life wasn't so much the firearm, but his being aware and getting away from the site. two stoned guys wouldn't have a chance in hell of finding them in the bush at night. I'm not saying that I would have done that, maybe I would, maybe not, but it seems to me that what saved thier life was the awareness more than the firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't worry, you won't piss me off discussing hypotheticals. Hindsight being 20/20 maybe retreating into the woods would have been better, knowing as we know now that there were still only the two guys. But retreating in the dark from a terrain you "own" into an unknown terrain populated by unknown additional perps has its own risks. One thing I teach is the "Plus One" rule. That is, always assume that there is one more attacker than you can account for. If you are in a convenience store and two guys with ski masks come in with guns, immediately try to figure out who amongst the customers is the "plus one," or, if you make it outside during the hold up, immediately start looking for the "plus one." Likewise if you are in your camp and decide to retreat, rememer that you might be running blindly into a "Plus n" ambush.
> 
> Generally, if someone survives, I don't second guess him or her. I met one woman who had handled herself impeccably during an abduction and kidnapping. I could not have improved one iota on her (untrained) instinctual performance and timely introduction of a firearm. I think the fact that she was a trauma nurse helped her settle into "the zone" when it was called for. Yet she was so shaken that she, quite correctly, came to me to train her the entire shift of nurses who she worked with. I kept telling her she did everything right. It took her hearing my presentation to believe it.
Click to expand...

agreed, when people come home they did something right. the plus one is a good rule - I know a guy who could have used that once. he and his wingman were both a little too focused on the guy he was shooting and somebody was able to walk up behind him and shoot him from behind. happens to the best.

anyway, like I said, I am glad at least some people are getting training and hopefully using their weapons responsibly.

and, I hope that you understand, I am not trying to disarm america, nor do I have anything in general against firearms.

have a nice weekend.


----------



## Daywalker

> quote:It's shocking how well this can work. I have a friend who spent about 6 months trying to avoid the boyfriend of a girl with whom he had screwed around. When the finally met face to face in a crowded room, the much bigger boyfriend nailed my friend across the jaw. They guy was huge but, fortunately for my friend, he didn't know the first thing about how to punch someone. My friend staggered back a bit but was fine. In front of a silent room, he said to the hulking barbarian, "are we done now?" Brute responded, "yeah." That was the end of it. My friend had been afraid of him for months and he came out of it looking like a hero. Didn't have to do a thing.


Now THAT is a cool story. It reminds me of the scene in _The Maltese Falcon_ where the police detective punches Spade square on the jaw and Spade takes one or two steps backward and then just rights himself.

A point well taken is that if one is going to throw a punch, one should know how to do so. Otherwise, said one might be in for an ass-kicking.


----------



## Daywalker

Wow. This has been an entertaining and exhausting thread.

In the U.S., one's personal decision to own and carry firearms must be respected as just that. Concerning concealed carry, I live in a shall-issue state; no training, no test, no fingerprinting, just an application and fee and a criminal background check. As a staunch advocate for our Constitutional rights, it kills me to say so, but I wish there were requirements for training. That aside, once a person has made the decision to take responsibility for their own self-defense, they must next make sure they possess the right mindset. To use a deadly weapon in self-defense requires the WILL to do so, not just the hope that everything will turn out OK. You must decide, in advance, that you will use the force necessary to ensure your survival. Trying to reason through it at the moment of truth may get you killed.

A few comments in this thread disturbed me--those which refer to the "need" to own firearms. As a free, law-abiding citizen, I don't have to demonstrate any particular need for gun ownership and that is as it should be. I am not some wannabe commando, nor do I think I am all that poorly endowed. I enjoy using firearms because of the sensory pleasure of shooting, the satisfaction of hitting the target after much practice, and the subjective beauty of the mechanical devices, much the same as the appreciation for mechanical watch movements. I also feel very secure in the knowledge that I am able to defend myself and others if need be. After all, in most cases, the police can do no more than write the report after the fact.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Daywalker_
> 
> Wow. This has been an entertaining and exhausting thread.
> 
> In the U.S., one's personal decision to own and carry firearms must be respected as just that. Concerning concealed carry, I live in a shall-issue state; no training, no test, no fingerprinting, just an application and fee and a criminal background check. As a staunch advocate for our Constitutional rights, it kills me to say so, but I wish there were requirements for training. That aside, once a person has made the decision to take responsibility for their own self-defense, they must next make sure they possess the right mindset. To use a deadly weapon in self-defense requires the WILL to do so, not just the hope that everything will turn out OK. You must decide, in advance, that you will use the force necessary to ensure your survival. Trying to reason through it at the moment of truth may get you killed.
> 
> A few comments in this thread disturbed me--those which refer to the "need" to own firearms. As a free, law-abiding citizen, I don't have to demonstrate any particular need for gun ownership and that is as it should be. I am not some wannabe commando, nor do I think I am all that poorly endowed. I enjoy using firearms because of the sensory pleasure of shooting, the satisfaction of hitting the target after much practice, and the subjective beauty of the mechanical devices, much the same as the appreciation for mechanical watch movements. I also feel very secure in the knowledge that I am able to defend myself and others if need be. After all, in most cases, the police can do no more than write the report after the fact.


daywalker,

1. like I have written before, respect is a funny word. one can choose how one wants to give his respect, and in many cases that is personal. I would give you 100% agreement that every law abiding citizen has the legal right to keep and bear arms, and I would not try to take that away from him, but I reserve my right to give my respect where I see fit.

2. to a large extent, the argument here seems to be what percentage of fireram owners have taken the correct training and preperation to arms themselves. it is my belief that way too few have, and it is the belief of many here that enough have. I don't think that there is any objective way of knowing.

3. I don't think that making the decision to be willing to use deadly force is enough. I am of the belief, which obviously is not shared here by most gun owners, that a tiny fraction of the people who arm themsevles will be able to actually influce any type of conflict in their favor.

4. I (and this gets back to the whole issue of the nature of respcet) find it very difficult to respect the idea of a person who doens't use firearms as their vocation enjoying firearms or shooting. that is a personal issue, an aesthetic issue, more than anything else.

5. about need - I don't suggest that firearm ownership be limited by law, although I think that there is a great deal of room in the american system for imporvements. for instance, require people to prove that they have an adequate safe and have taken adequate training before they purchase a firearm, make people criminally and financialy laible for all crimes and damage done with their firearms that may be stolen fom them, etc. but aside from the legal issue, there is a moral and an aesthetic issue, in my mind. there is some chance that firearms will fall into the wrong use, perhaps it is a small chance, perhaps it is a larger chance. it should be a consideration to self limit onesself in the number of lethalness of one's firarms. by that I mean - sure, you need a firearm, maybe two, to protect yourself, by all means. why get 50? you need a 12 guage shotgun? great, why get a 50 caliber rifle. I see no problem with this thought process - there are 3 real reasons to get a firearm, and I just think that people should think through what their needs are before they purchase a firearm, and that they should purchase what they can care for and what fits their needs best. I would ask no more or less from a person purchasing a puppy.


----------



## Daywalker

> quote:
> 3. I don't think that making the decision to be willing to use deadly force is enough. I am of the belief, which obviously is not shared here by most gun owners, that a tiny fraction of the people who arm themsevles will be able to actually influce any type of conflict in their favor.


I repectfully disagree with you on this point. There are plenty of statistics that demonstrate the number of times that lawful firearm ownership has thwarted crime. Influencing the outcome can happen without a shot ever being fired.



> quote:
> 4. I (and this gets back to the whole issue of the nature of respcet) find it very difficult to respect the idea of a person who doens't use firearms as their vocation enjoying firearms or shooting. that is a personal issue, an aesthetic issue, more than anything else.


With all due respect, that is a pretty elitist attitude. Your credentials have been mentioned here and I respect them. But you seem to be saying that only professionals should own firearms, and the rest of us should be left to the wolves. The right of self-defense is a natural right that is available to everybody. Practiced within the law, the enjoyment of using firearms has its place.



> quote:
> 5. about need - I don't suggest that firearm ownership be limited by law, although I think that there is a great deal of room in the american system for imporvements. for instance, require people to prove that they have an adequate safe and have taken adequate training before they purchase a firearm, make people criminally and financialy laible for all crimes and damage done with their firearms that may be stolen fom them, etc. but aside from the legal issue, there is a moral and an aesthetic issue, in my mind. there is some chance that firearms will fall into the wrong use, perhaps it is a small chance, perhaps it is a larger chance. it should be a consideration to self limit onesself in the number of lethalness of one's firarms. by that I mean - sure, you need a firearm, maybe two, to protect yourself, by all means. why get 50? you need a 12 guage shotgun? great, why get a 50 caliber rifle. I see no problem with this thought process - there are 3 real reasons to get a firearm, and I just think that people should think through what their needs are before they purchase a firearm, and that they should purchase what they can care for and what fits their needs best. I would ask no more or less from a person purchasing a puppy.


You seem to be lumping everybody else together into a single group--dummies who don't know how to handle guns. Believe it or not, there are non-professionals out there who are more proficient that many armed professionals. As an example, our sportsmen's club allows the local police department to use the pistol range for qualifying, as a goodwill gesture. Every spring after qualifying is over, we need to rebuild the target stands because the LEO's can't hit the paper at 7 yards and they completely destroy the stands!

It has been my experience that people who collect firearms are the ones most proficient in their use and handling. There is nothing wrong with collecting and there is nothing wrong with wanting a 50 cal. if that is what one wants. Although you deny it, you always seem to come back around to demonstrating need as a reason to own.

Peace.


----------



## mokita

Originally posted by globetrotter



> quote:2. to a large extent, the argument here seems to be what percentage of fireram owners have taken the correct training and preperation to arms themselves. it is my belief that way too few have, and it is the belief of many here that enough have. I don't think that there is any objective way of knowing.


While I agree that training is a good idea, we are not talking about learning to pilot an airplane. Most people can understand how to load a revolver and that when the trigger is pulled, it fires. They also understand that the bullet exits the barrel and that the idea is to point the barrel at the criminal who is attacking. I have been a NRA member for 40 years and have seen a one page list of legal uses of firearms for self defense printed in every issue of the American Rifleman. A large majority of those accounts are simple and do not illustrate any need for much more than common sense. Also, keep in mind that in the vast majority of cases, the use of a firearm to deter a criminal has not required the firing of a single shot. The victim simply points the gun and the bad guy decides to pick a different victim.



> quote:3. I don't think that making the decision to be willing to use deadly force is enough. I am of the belief, which obviously is not shared here by most gun owners, that a tiny fraction of the people who arm themsevles will be able to actually influce any type of conflict in their favor.


Your belief is an opinion that is at odds with the facts. A large fraction of the defensive uses of firearms has worked as expected and has not required any shot to be fired. I strongly commend to you the book MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME by John Lott, Jr. After you read that scholarly work, you will have a more realistic understanding of the role of firearms in American society.



> quote:4. I (and this gets back to the whole issue of the nature of respcet) find it very difficult to respect the idea of a person who doens't use firearms as their vocation enjoying firearms or shooting. that is a personal issue, an aesthetic issue, more than anything else.


That doesn't make any sense to me. If I am not a sculptor, would you use the same logic to argue that I should not appreciate or buy sculpture for personal enjoyment?



> quote:5. about need - I don't suggest that firearm ownership be limited by law, although I think that there is a great deal of room in the american system for imporvements. for instance, require people to prove that they have an adequate safe and have taken adequate training before they purchase a firearm,


If a person purchases a firearm for personal defense, it will not do him any good, if it is locked in a vault. The best place for the gun is on his hip.



> quote:make people criminally and financially laible for all crimes and damage done with their firearms that may be stolen fom them, etc.


If someone breaks into your car, steals it, then kills someone with it, should you go to prison? If they steal a knife from your kitchen, then decapitate someone with it, are you the one who should be charged with murder? If someone steals drugs that your doctor has prescribed, then sells them, should you be charged with the illegal sale? If someone buys them and dies from an overdose, are you criminally responsible?



> quote: but aside from the legal issue,


There is not a legal issue, there is an argument that you invented, but which is not reflected in the laws of most states.



> quote:by that I mean - sure, you need a firearm, maybe two, to protect yourself, by all means. why get 50?


Would you object to someone owning 50 stocks? How about 50 paintings? My high end shotguns have appreciated enormously over the time I have owned them. Why would you object to my experiencing a capital appreciation on them?

As for ordinary guns, there are good reasons to own 50. If someone enjoys the full range of shooting sports, he probably NEEDS 50 guns to deal with the various applications. You don't use the same gun to shoot bowling pins that you use to shoot bullseyes. Free-style events require special guns. Benchrest shooting requires a benchrest rifle. High power shooting requires a special rifle. Trap and skeet guns are constructed differently as are sporting clays guns. Where shotguns are required for deer, the guns used are designed expressly for that single application and are virtually useless for anything else. Cowboy action shooting has rules limiting the kinds of guns that are allowed. If you want to shoot in black powder events, you need a black powder gun. Some events use different guns for the same competition (skeet is shot with four different gauges). Silhouette competitions are shot with different size guns, handguns, and rifles. You would not want to shoot a goose with a quail gun or vice versa. Hunting a squirrel requires a gun that is different from that used for a groundhog or a moose.



> quote:you need a 12 gauge shotgun? great, why get a 50 caliber rifle.


They obviously serve different purposes. Why would anyone care how many interests another person has?



> quote:there are 3 real reasons to get a firearm,


1 - self-defense
2 - hunting
3 - target shooting
4 - investment for financial gain
5 - collection for personal enjoyment


----------



## Kav

6- construction 'guns' using a very powerfull .22 rimfire blank to drive large nails 7- emergency line throwing firearms as used by various marine agencies. Mine was a smoothbore 1917 Enfield utilising blanks to propel a plastic or bronze tipped wieght attached to a large reel 8-Scientific research- highly specialised firearms are used to measure geologic features by measuring the impact signature ( I won't even pretend to understand this one) of a round fired from an aircraft. 9- a cheaper, environmentally friendlier system to launch satellites into orbit. The canadian who built Saddam's super cannon was disgruntled over his project's cancellation.Jules Vern was right! Cannons can do the job without destroying the Ozone or causing massive toxic waste dumping such as the Rocketdyne site nearby that built our Saturn rockets. Sort of penance for all the toxic lead sites on former shooting ranges[xx(]10- design genius and inspiration- It wasn't Henry Ford who invented the assembly line, but to a large degree Col Sam Colt in Hartford Connecticut. The firearms industry led America into concepts of productivity and a skilled workforce that is now being cavalierly shipped overseas.11- educating the american public on alternate systems of measurement. Our own NASA managed to slam a probe into Mars when two divisions used SAE and metric calculations oblivious to each other.Any 'gun nut' can lose you with guages,bores, drams, inside calibers, the metric system, SAE and even old Tzarist arshams. A gemnologist tries to drown me in carots, gramms and metric dimensions online and I'm mentally looking at a 7 MM mauser case neck or the reloading scale a policeman thought was drug paraphenalia at a roadblock. His senior partner saw the 1lb can of Unique and 1000 virgin .45 colt cases and waved me through with a smile and 'HAVE FUN!'


----------



## globetrotter

[quote 


> quote:
> 4. I (and this gets back to the whole issue of the nature of respcet) find it very difficult to respect the idea of a person who doens't use firearms as their vocation enjoying firearms or shooting. that is a personal issue, an aesthetic issue, more than anything else.


With all due respect, that is a pretty elitist attitude. Your credentials have been mentioned here and I respect them. But you seem to be saying that only professionals should own firearms, and the rest of us should be left to the wolves. The right of self-defense is a natural right that is available to everybody. Practiced within the law, the enjoyment of using firearms has its place. 
[/quote]

it may very well be an elitest attitude, and I apologize for that. you should have met me at 20, I didn't even hang out with people from tanks and artilary. we are, on the other hand, on a pretty elitest board. my feelings are probrably very much similar to how you may feel if you see somebdy dressed in a way that is very unaesthetic to you.

or let me put it another way. I have a problem with my mother in law. I have no respect for her. she was born to a very good family in a south american country, and was raised with the idea that she should never have to work. she was raised with the idea that she was part of a certain group of elites. I was raised with the idea that everybody should work, and I give respect to people, in many ways, based on my respect for there work. that doesn't make me better or her better. she feels that I owe her respect that I can't give her. not because I am better than her, but because she doesn't fit my criteria for respect.

I have said many times, that it isn't an issue that I don't respect any gun owners or carriers. my criteria might seem strange, but they are certainly not elitest. in the simplest form, I really feel that people should own firearms because they need them, not as an end to themselves. if you hunt, and have the right firearms needed to hunt, great. if you feel that you are protecting the rights of the citizens against tyrany, and you have the right tools for that, I guess great, too. if you need firearms for work, great. if you need a firearm to answer a credible threat to your safety, then I respect that, too. I find it difficult to respect owning firearms for purposes of a hobby. that is my own issue.

to a large extent, this is a cultural aesthetic issue.

peace with you, as well.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> Originally posted by globetrotter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:2. to a large extent, the argument here seems to be what percentage of fireram owners have taken the correct training and preperation to arms themselves. it is my belief that way too few have, and it is the belief of many here that enough have. I don't think that there is any objective way of knowing.
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree that training is a good idea, we are not talking about learning to pilot an airplane. Most people can understand how to load a revolver and that when the trigger is pulled, it fires. They also understand that the bullet exits the barrel and that the idea is to point the barrel at the criminal who is attacking. I have been a NRA member for 40 years and have seen a one page list of legal uses of firearms for self defense printed in every issue of the American Rifleman. A large majority of those accounts are simple and do not illustrate any need for much more than common sense. Also, keep in mind that in the vast majority of cases, the use of a firearm to deter a criminal has not required the firing of a single shot. The victim simply points the gun and the bad guy decides to pick a different victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:3. I don't think that making the decision to be willing to use deadly force is enough. I am of the belief, which obviously is not shared here by most gun owners, that a tiny fraction of the people who arm themsevles will be able to actually influce any type of conflict in their favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your belief is an opinion that is at odds with the facts. A large fraction of the defensive uses of firearms has worked as expected and has not required any shot to be fired. I strongly commend to you the book MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME by John Lott, Jr. After you read that scholarly work, you will have a more realistic understanding of the role of firearms in American society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:4. I (and this gets back to the whole issue of the nature of respcet) find it very difficult to respect the idea of a person who doens't use firearms as their vocation enjoying firearms or shooting. that is a personal issue, an aesthetic issue, more than anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't make any sense to me. If I am not a sculptor, would you use the same logic to argue that I should not appreciate or buy sculpture for personal enjoyment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:5. about need - I don't suggest that firearm ownership be limited by law, although I think that there is a great deal of room in the american system for imporvements. for instance, require people to prove that they have an adequate safe and have taken adequate training before they purchase a firearm,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If a person purchases a firearm for personal defense, it will not do him any good, if it is locked in a vault. The best place for the gun is on his hip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:make people criminally and financially laible for all crimes and damage done with their firearms that may be stolen fom them, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If someone breaks into your car, steals it, then kills someone with it, should you go to prison? If they steal a knife from your kitchen, then decapitate someone with it, are you the one who should be charged with murder? If someone steals drugs that your doctor has prescribed, then sells them, should you be charged with the illegal sale? If someone buys them and dies from an overdose, are you criminally responsible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote: but aside from the legal issue,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is not a legal issue, there is an argument that you invented, but which is not reflected in the laws of most states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:by that I mean - sure, you need a firearm, maybe two, to protect yourself, by all means. why get 50?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you object to someone owning 50 stocks? How about 50 paintings? My high end shotguns have appreciated enormously over the time I have owned them. Why would you object to my experiencing a capital appreciation on them?
> 
> As for ordinary guns, there are good reasons to own 50. If someone enjoys the full range of shooting sports, he probably NEEDS 50 guns to deal with the various applications. You don't use the same gun to shoot bowling pins that you use to shoot bullseyes. Free-style events require special guns. Benchrest shooting requires a benchrest rifle. High power shooting requires a special rifle. Trap and skeet guns are constructed differently as are sporting clays guns. Where shotguns are required for deer, the guns used are designed expressly for that single application and are virtually useless for anything else. Cowboy action shooting has rules limiting the kinds of guns that are allowed. If you want to shoot in black powder events, you need a black powder gun. Some events use different guns for the same competition (skeet is shot with four different gauges). Silhouette competitions are shot with different size guns, handguns, and rifles. You would not want to shoot a goose with a quail gun or vice versa. Hunting a squirrel requires a gun that is different from that used for a groundhog or a moose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:you need a 12 gauge shotgun? great, why get a 50 caliber rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They obviously serve different purposes. Why would anyone care how many interests another person has?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there are 3 real reasons to get a firearm,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1 - self-defense
> 2 - hunting
> 3 - target shooting
> 4 - investment for financial gain
> 5 - collection for personal enjoyment
> 
> [/quote
> 
> on the operation - here we differ. I agree that to fire at a paper target is nowhere near as difficult or requires as much training as flying a plane. and here may be one of the main diferences in our understanding of the issue. I see knowing how to fight with a firearm as encompassing a great deal larger picture, part on the safety side, and part on the operation side. for what ever reason, lots of firearms in america are getting stolen, and many people are getting shot by accident.
> 
> on the intervention - here, also, I am not sure. like you said, a lot of these instances didn't involve any more than the gun owner showing his firearm. would they have been as effecive without a firearm? hard to say. I have stopped 4 muggings and helped to free a white slave, as a civillian, without ever needing a firearm. my brother (who didn't serve in the military) has prevented a mugging, and stopped a home invasion without a firearm. so, I wonder in how many cases the difference between the crime being commited and it not being commited was actually the use of the firearm.
> 
> I don't think that the sculptor issue is the correct comparrison. lets say somebody starts wearing a sculptors smock, and a beret, and carrying around a hammer and chisel, but isn't a sculptor. that is more of the correct comparison.
> 
> on carrying a gun - sorry, I don't agree. again, I can't imagine that many situations where a firearm on your hip will allow you to intervine in a situation better than a non-lethal weapon. and, I think that the possiblity of weapons falling into the wrong hands shoot through the roof that way.
> 
> on the legal liabilty of firearms - again, firearms are not like cars or, pretty much anything else. they are made to kill. if you can't keep them stored well, you shouldn't have them. if you insist on having more than you can keep track of, and/or extremly powerful or dangerous ones, then you should have liability if they are stolen or lost. in israel, a lot of people have firearms. it is almost unheard of for a firearm to be used in a crime, nobody gets killed by accident by firearms. why? because nobody has more than one, and they keep them safe. no reason not to do that in the states.
> 
> in the specific issue of collecting weapons for financial gain, well, maybe that is a reason to have many, although still I think it a little iffy. in terms of colleting for fun, I think that it is not something that I respect, and that is an extremly gentle way of putting it. sure, if you hunt 12 types of game, get 12 guns. I think that I have made pretty clear my feeling about sport shooting. and I honestly don't think that for purposes of self defence one needs more than a couple of firearms.
> 
> look, I don't make the laws, and the laws aren't going to change in the near future. I am talking about my own personal feeling, and where I put my respect and my understanding. I, personally, don't respect collecting guns or shooting for the fun of shooting. that doesn't need to influence anybody. according to all of you, you are well trained and handle your firearms safely. all I really care about is that you don't fire through my wall by accident, and you try not to let your guns get stolen. what other hobbies you have doens't really interst me.
Click to expand...


----------



## globetrotter

of course, the american gun owning public is so concerned with safety, and is so comfortable with firearms that it would be inconcievable for something to happen like, or for instance, an experienced older hunter to shoot his friend in a quail shoot, eh?


----------



## bosthist

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> of course, the american gun owning public is so concerned with safety, and is so comfortable with firearms that it would be inconcievable for something to happen like, or for instance, an experienced older hunter to shoot his friend in a quail shoot, eh?


The last line of the story gives me pause: "This is something that happens from time to time. You know, I've been peppered pretty well myself," said Armstrong [the owner of the ranch].


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> of course, the american gun owning public is so concerned with safety, and is so comfortable with firearms that it would be inconcievable for something to happen like, or for instance, an experienced older hunter to shoot his friend in a quail shoot, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> The last line of the story gives me pause: "This is something that happens from time to time. You know, I've been peppered pretty well myself," said Armstrong [the owner of the ranch].
Click to expand...


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> of course, the american gun owning public is so concerned with safety, and is so comfortable with firearms that it would be inconcievable for something to happen like, or for instance, an experienced older hunter to shoot his friend in a quail shoot, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> The last line of the story gives me pause: "This is something that happens from time to time. You know, I've been peppered pretty well myself," said Armstrong [the owner of the ranch].
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

In quail hunting, it does happen sometimes. It has to do with the way the fields are swept. Certainly, it shouldn't happen, but the distances involved make serious injury unlikely. A good friend of mine peppered his father-in-law. Worse injuries happen every day in football, soccor, horseback riding, etc. It is entirely predictable, however, that those who don't know the sport will latch onto this out of ignorance to make their case against the sporting use of firearms.


----------



## globetrotter

MILWAUKEE â€” One woman here killed a friend after they argued over a brown silk dress. A man killed a neighbor whose 10-year-old son had mistakenly used his dish soap. Two men argued over a cellphone, and pulling out their guns, the police say, killed a 13-year-old girl in the crossfire. 

Skip to next paragraph 
Enlarge This Image

Ryan Donnell for The New York Times
Law enforcement officers trying to serve a warrant in South Philadelphia. With 380 homicides, 2005 was the deadliest year in that city since 1997. 



An Uptick in Murders While violent crime has been at historic lows nationwide and in cities like New York, Miami and Los Angeles, it is rising sharply here and in many other places across the country. 

And while such crime in the 1990's was characterized by battles over gangs and drug turf, the police say the current rise in homicides has been set off by something more bewildering: petty disputes that hardly seem the stuff of fistfights, much less gunfire or stabbings. 

Suspects tell the police they killed someone who "disrespected" them or a family member, or someone who was "mean mugging" them, which the police loosely translate as giving a dirty look. And more weapons are on the streets, giving people a way to act on their anger.

Police Chief Nannette H. Hegerty of Milwaukee calls it "the rage thing."

"We're seeing a very angry population, and they don't go to fists anymore, they go right to guns," she said. "A police department can have an effect on drugs or gangs. But two people arguing in a home, how does the police department go in and stop that?"

Here in Milwaukee, where homicides jumped from 88 in 2004 to 122 last year, the number classified as arguments rose to 45 from 17, making up by far the largest category of killings, as gang and drug murders declined. 

In Houston, where homicides rose 24 percent last year, disputes were by far the largest category, 113 out of 336 killings. Officials were alarmed by the increase in murders well before Hurricane Katrina swelled the city's population by 150,000 people in September; the police say 18 homicides were related to evacuees. 

In Philadelphia, where 380 homicides made 2005 the deadliest year since 1997, 208 were disputes; drug-related killings, which accounted for about 40 percent of homicides during the high-crime period of the early 1990's, accounted for just 13 percent.

"When we ask, 'Why did you shoot this guy?' it's, 'He bumped into me,' 'He looked at my girl the wrong way,' " said Police Commissioner Sylvester M. Johnson of Philadelphia. "It's not like they're riding around doing drive-by shootings. It's arguments â€” stupid arguments over stupid things."

The police say the suspects and the victims tend to be black, young â€” midteens to mid-20's â€” and have previous criminal records. They tend to know each other. Several cities said that domestic violence had also risen. And the murders tend to be limited to particular neighborhoods. Downtown Milwaukee has not had a homicide in about five years, but in largely black neighborhoods on the north side, murders rose from 57 in 2004 to 94 last year. 

"We're not talking about a city, we're talking about this subpopulation, that's what drives everything," said David M. Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. "When they calm down, all the numbers go down. When they heat up, all the numbers go up. They hurt each other over personal stuff. It's respect and disrespect, and it's girls."

While arguments have always made up a large number of homicides, the police say the trigger point now comes faster. 

"Traditionally, you could see the beef growing and maybe hitting the volatile point," said Daniel Coleman, the commander of the homicide unit in Boston. "Now we see these things, they're flashes, they're very unpredictable. Even five years ago, in what started as a fight or dispute, maybe you'd have a knife shown. Now it's an automatic default to a firearm."

In robberies, Milwaukee's Chief Hegerty said, "even after the person gives up, the guy with the gun shoots him anyway. We didn't have as much of that before."

Homicide rates are driven by different factors in each city, but even cities whose rates have fallen have seen problems with disputes, though those disputes are often about drugs or gangs. "As the murder universe continues to shrink in New York, the common denominators remain consistent," said Police Department Deputy Commissioner Paul J. Browne. "In most instances, killers and victims knew each other, each had criminal records, and they were engaged in disputes, usually over narcotics."


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> of course, the american gun owning public is so concerned with safety, and is so comfortable with firearms that it would be inconcievable for something to happen like, or for instance, an experienced older hunter to shoot his friend in a quail shoot, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> The last line of the story gives me pause: "This is something that happens from time to time. You know, I've been peppered pretty well myself," said Armstrong [the owner of the ranch].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In quail hunting, it does happen sometimes. It has to do with the way the fields are swept. Certainly, it shouldn't happen, but the distances involved make serious injury unlikely. A good friend of mine peppered his father-in-law. Worse injuries happen every day in football, soccor, horseback riding, etc. It is entirely predictable, however, that those who don't know the sport will latch onto this out of ignorance to make their case against the sporting use of firearms.
Click to expand...

well, yes, that is one way of looking at it. another is here is a man who has 50 years expereince hunting, in a field, in daylight, totally relaxed, well rested, and he can't keep from shooting his friend. luckily he was using a bird gun.

now, lets say he has a few dozen hours at a range. he is in a dark room, woken up at 3 am. he is flooded with unfamiliar adrenaline. he is armed with about twice as much gun as he really should be using, because it looked really cool in the store, and he is shooting down stairs at an angle. real recipe for safe shooting, eh?

I know hunters shoot each other all the time. like I said, a dozen or so posts ago - men I have trained have been in exersizs where they were shooting at targets on 3 walls in a smokey dark room with two other guys, they have been in exersizes where about 1000 people were within range of thier rifle and we were all shooting hundreds of rounds. and we were, somehow, able to keep from hitting each other. so when you talk about how a person can learn to use a firearm in a weekend, we are obviously talking about different levels of expectations.

I am not using this as a case against sporting firearms, I am using this as a case against self defence firearms - I don't care if somebody shoots his hunting buddy with bird shot from a bird gun. I don't want the same guy firing AP rounds through my wall in the middle of the night by accident.


----------



## Kav

Quail hunting? I thought only the Clinton's were capable of murder conspiracies! is the former VP allright? I had quail once, with potato(e) and a nice Chardonnay. I can't bring myself to ever shoot or consume another one. Years ago up in Big Bear a friend raised pheasants and quail. During a winter snowfall one somehow got out of the cage. Come morning we found the entire covey outside of their nesting box huddled against the snowdrifted fence. We thought there was either a predator in the box or they were incredibly stupid birds. And there, huddled outside the fence and alive from the communal body heat was the lost bird.I see behavior like that, and regardless of biological explanations or measures of sentience have to call a permanent truce.


----------



## Daywalker

> quote:
> I am not using this as a case against sporting firearms, I am using this as a case against self defence firearms - I don't care if somebody shoots his hunting buddy with bird shot from a bird gun. I don't want the same guy firing AP rounds through my wall in the middle of the night by accident.


AP rounds? From a handgun? I can't say I have ever heard of such a thing. Doesn't the principle of AP require great velocity and projectile mass and composition, certainly greater than that obtainable with a handgun? I have used nylon-jacketed round nose ammunition but it is far from "AP". Is this the same as the famous "cop killer bullets" that the politicians love to talk about but that don't really exist?

Any level of body armor can be defeated by the next greater threat level but you need to get into the larger rifle calibers to defeat, say, Level III; and Level IV, the greatest protection currently available, will defeat 30-06 and AP *RIFLE* rounds. Hardly appropriate for home defense use. Please clarify "AP" in the home defense scenario. A 12-gauge slug will come through your wall and that is a common deer hunting round.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Daywalker_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:
> I am not using this as a case against sporting firearms, I am using this as a case against self defence firearms - I don't care if somebody shoots his hunting buddy with bird shot from a bird gun. I don't want the same guy firing AP rounds through my wall in the middle of the night by accident.
> 
> 
> 
> AP rounds? From a handgun? I can't say I have ever heard of such a thing. Doesn't the principle of AP require great velocity and projectile mass and composition, certainly greater than that obtainable with a handgun? I have used nylon-jacketed round nose ammunition but it is far from "AP". Is this the same as the famous "cop killer bullets" that the politicians love to talk about but that don't really exist?
> 
> Any level of body armor can be defeated by the next greater threat level but you need to get into the larger rifle calibers to defeat, say, Level III; and Level IV, the greatest protection currently available, will defeat 30-06 and AP *RIFLE* rounds. Hardly appropriate for home defense use. Please clarify "AP" in the home defense scenario. A 12-gauge slug will come through your wall and that is a common deer hunting round.
Click to expand...

I didn't say "handgun", did I? and I was using the term the symbolize all the various innappropriate ammo out there. there are several manufacturers who make perfectly lethal handgun and rifle ammo that will not go through walls, and of course there is birdshot. my point, and the point that I have been trying to make for 10 pages, is that people often do not choose the appropriate ammo, just like they don't choose the appropriate weapon to defend their house.


----------



## globetrotter

I was thinking about this thread yesterday while shoveling snow, and a few questions came up in my mind.

1. defibrillators - I have mentioned this a couple of times, and it has been totally ignored. if one of the main considerations of having a firearm is to be prepared to defend ones self, one's family, ones community from all potential dangers - how many gun owners have a defibrillator at home? the chance of needing a defibrilator to save the life of a friend, family member or neighbor is about 3-4 orders of magnitude greater than the chance of needing a firarm to do the same. maybe even as much as 5 or more orders of magnitude. both of my grandfathers had heart attacks, my father, both of my next door nieghbors. heart desease is the number one or number two killer of women and men in theis country. a $500 automatic defibrilator can save huge numbers of lives. and yet, of all of these people who insist that they need to be ready for anything, how many of them have a defibrilator?

2, drugs - repetedly, I have mentioned that I think that firearms should be used by people who have a need for them, and not for recreational purposes. this is seen as some insult to the consitution by some. how about we compare that to drugs - my mother needs pain medicine, she is 75, and many of her joints are falling apart. I imagine that I could enjoy her medicine, it probrably would give me a nice buzz, but it seems to me wrong to take pain medication, when you don't need it. there are pleanty of people who would like to spend their lives taking narcotics - and they are not nessasarily bad people, just people that I don't have much respect for. in many cases, these are people who are not criminals in any other respects, and who can support themselves and not contribute to other crimes - why don't we let them "pursue happiness" in their own way? part of the reason is that we don't want the drugs to contribute to other crimes, part of it is that we don't see a need for the people to use these drugs. 

some thing, in my opinion, as with firearms,


----------



## tiger02

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> on the operation - here we differ. I agree that to fire at a paper target is nowhere near as difficult or requires as much training as flying a plane. and here may be one of the main diferences in our understanding of the issue.* I see knowing how to fight with a firearm as encompassing a great deal larger picture, part on the safety side, and part on the operation side*. for what ever reason, lots of firearms in america are getting stolen, and many people are getting shot by accident.


Coming to the thread late and I do not intend to read all 10 pages. On this point, the US Army requires qualifying on a primary weapon system (ie M-16) every six months, and requires ROE training (ie this is when it's OK to shoot, this is when it's not) every three months. In practice, infantry soldiers probably shoot once a month and get ROE training as often, while support soldiers hit the standards.

Tom


----------



## tiger02

> quote:_Originally posted by Daywalker_
> 
> AP rounds? From a handgun?


First thought that comes to mind is .45 hollowpoints, but I'm no expert.


----------



## johnapril

Finding beauty in a gun is like finding pleasure in pornography: both have the effect of diminishing one's sensitivity and respect for life.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> on the operation - here we differ. I agree that to fire at a paper target is nowhere near as difficult or requires as much training as flying a plane. and here may be one of the main diferences in our understanding of the issue.* I see knowing how to fight with a firearm as encompassing a great deal larger picture, part on the safety side, and part on the operation side*. for what ever reason, lots of firearms in america are getting stolen, and many people are getting shot by accident.
> 
> 
> 
> Coming to the thread late and I do not intend to read all 10 pages. On this point, the US Army requires qualifying on a primary weapon system (ie M-16) every six months, and requires ROE training (ie this is when it's OK to shoot, this is when it's not) every three months. In practice, infantry soldiers probably shoot once a month and get ROE training as often, while support soldiers hit the standards.
> 
> Tom
Click to expand...

Tom, is that about right? an infantry soldier shooting once a month? is that paper target range shooting, or is that a running excersize? just wondering.

welcome to the madness of the firearm thread.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Daywalker_
> 
> AP rounds? From a handgun?
> 
> 
> 
> First thought that comes to mind is .45 hollowpoints, but I'm no expert.
Click to expand...

actually, Tom, a 45 hollow point should have the oposite effect - a huge shallow hole, when the round hits it should turn into a wide flat projectile. and 45's are typically slow rounds. this would make a huge hole in flesh, but typically shouldn't get through solid materials. the ones that are sold as AP are usually the oposite - high velocity with a jacket fo something to keep them from falling appart so that they go right through solid materials, usually making a little hole.

some of the best rounds for use in the home are soft low velocity rounds that will crumble in a person, and in a wall, and so are effective but don't go through walls. on the other hand, they don't have sexy names, so when you buy them you loose the john wayne effect, so, of course many people would rather buy fancy ammo to go with their fancy guns, without quite worrying about where that ammo will stop moving when they fire it in the middle of the night when the cat needs to go out.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by johnapril_
> 
> Finding beauty in a gun is like finding pleasure in pornography: both have the effect of diminishing one's sensitivity and respect for life.


----------



## tiger02

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> Tom, is that about right? an infantry soldier shooting once a month? is that paper target range shooting, or is that a running excersize? just wondering.
> 
> welcome to the madness of the firearm thread.


Yeah, not sure I want to put much effort into this one  In the rear it's going to be up and down a little bit but average out to once a month-ish. Sometimes paper, sometimes popups, usually live-fire exercises. Out here it's a lot more frequent, weekly or more.


----------



## FlatSix

> quote:_Originally posted by TE Hesketh_
> You are insinuating perhaps that I am a liar?


Liar? Probably not. Regrettably credulous? Yes.



> quote:As I tried to make clear, I am not merely parroting an urban myth such as that which you quote. A person I know and trust told me that this is what his neighbour did, when both were living as neigbhours in SA.


This is called "hearsay". It's not admissable in an American court and it counts as nothing but bunk here. There's a reason for that.

We now return to the "Globetrotter Show", where one man fights a battle for the forces of, er, letting everyone know what a combat-trained hotshot he is.

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

"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


----------



## Daywalker

> quote:
> actually, Tom, a 45 hollow point should have the oposite effect - a huge shallow hole, when the round hits it should turn into a wide flat projectile. and 45's are typically slow rounds. this would make a huge hole in flesh, but typically shouldn't get through solid materials. the ones that are sold as AP are usually the oposite - high velocity with a jacket fo something to keep them from falling appart so that they go right through solid materials, usually making a little hole.
> 
> some of the best rounds for use in the home are soft low velocity rounds that will crumble in a person, and in a wall, and so are effective but don't go through walls. on the other hand, they don't have sexy names, so when you buy them you loose the john wayne effect, so, of course many people would rather buy fancy ammo to go with their fancy guns, without quite worrying about where that ammo will stop moving when they fire it in the middle of the night when the cat needs to go out.


globetroter, there is no such thing as an AP round for a handgun. Period. Merely jacketing a solid projectile does not make it armor-piercing. There is alot more science to it than that.

The best ammunition for defense (home or elsewhere) is reliably-expanding hollow point. As I'm sure you know, the design principle is that the projectile will expand to a flattened head some multiple of its original diameter. The projectile's kinetic energy gets dumped inside the target, creating a wide wound cavity and hopefully disrupting the central nervous system (so-called knockdown power), and exiting the target and causing collateral damage is unlikely due to the energy dump and the diminished velocity. The idea is not to simply make "a huge hole in flesh". Many times, persons shot with non-expanding rounds are able to continue the fight because there just is not enough CNS disruption. Waiting for a determined person to bleed to death through a "huge hole" can get you killed.

High-velocity rifle rounds are an entirely different story--they depend on projectile weight and velocity to stop the target.

Rounds that "crumble" inside the target (frangible rounds) are really only useful in the smaller calibers, say smaller than 9mm, where the caliber itself has inadequate stopping power, even when expanded. You are then depending on the projectile fragments to cause multiple wound cavities in the hope that you might hit something important. With the serious self-defense calibers, you really want the projectile to stay together.

I really have come to believe here that you object to us non-professionals using firearms because you think it somehow diminishes your....I don't know what, exactly. But your attempts to make the rest of us look like incopetent ninnies is not working.


----------



## globetrotter

[quote
I really have come to believe here that you object to us non-professionals using firearms because you think it somehow diminishes your....I don't know what, exactly. But your attempts to make the rest of us look like incopetent ninnies is not working.
[/quote]

not at all. frankly, I spent a good 15 years of my life not discussing this whole issue. I doubt that I have any friends that I have made over the past 15 years who are even aware of what I did in my late teens and early twenties. I found, however, that when I did discuss the issue of firearms, I was on the recieving end of a number of attacks as to my lack of experience, my assumed hatred and fear of firearms, and my sexual orientation. it seemed a good idea to raise my background to establish credibility.

obviously, you have settled into your ways, as have most of the posters here. I wish you luck with it. I feel pretty confident that, at least the few posters here who do seem to take the hobby seriously are not a risk to public saftey. great. I hope that you are closer to the truth in believing that this is representative of the gun owning population.

have a nice week.


----------



## mokita

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> A gemnologist tries to drown me in carots, gramms and metric dimensions online and I'm mentally looking at a 7 MM mauser case neck or the reloading scale a policeman thought was drug paraphenalia at a roadblock. His senior partner saw the 1lb can of Unique and 1000 virgin .45 colt cases and waved me through with a smile and 'HAVE FUN!'


 I can't count the number of 8 pound kegs of Unique that I have burned. It is probably the most versatile powder ever made. I use it for a few 12 ga loads, most 20 ga loads, many 28 ga loads, most .44 Mag loads, and occasionally for .357 and 9mm.

A few years ago, I ran across an article on smokeless powder history. I was surprised to read that Unique is one of the oldest smokeless powders in use and goes back to the very beginning. As I recall, Bulls Eye was (at least back then) simply the fine residue from sifting Unique.


----------



## mokita

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> now, lets say he has a few dozen hours at a range. he is in a dark room, woken up at 3 am. he is flooded with unfamiliar adrenaline. he is armed with about twice as much gun as he really should be using,


What specific gun would be "twice as much gun as he really should be using," and how do you go about making that determination?

After we know the answer, we will naturally want to know which gun is "just right" by your analysis and why?

Thank you.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> now, lets say he has a few dozen hours at a range. he is in a dark room, woken up at 3 am. he is flooded with unfamiliar adrenaline. he is armed with about twice as much gun as he really should be using,
> 
> 
> 
> What specific gun would be "twice as much gun as he really should be using," and how do you go about making that determination?
> 
> After we know the answer, we will naturally want to know which gun is "just right" by your analysis and why?
> 
> Thank you.
Click to expand...

well, this goes back to threat assesment, and figuring out what you really need. it appears that that is not the way people do it around here, so I am guessing that what ever I say I am going to cause resentment.

I was tought to go with firearms that would be considered very light by american standards - what we used was a simple 9mm - and to use a two shot pattern, repeated as nessasary. It seems that every suburb in america is full of 400 pound ex-NFL offensive linemen on PCP breaking into peoples houses in the middle of the night, so people seem to like to go with a bigger weapon here.

more importantly, I was tought to take into consideration your enviroment - the way most buildings are made here, I would probrably forgo a handgun altogether and get a 20 guage shotgun with light shot - no 7 or such, if I really thought that I needed a firearm for protection of my house and family.

but the bottom line I think that in almost every case any firearm is going to be more than is needed for the threats faced.

most importantly, I would make sure aethsetics, movies, and other influences didnt effect my choice, and I would make sure first not to put any good guys in harms way with my choice of weapon.

now, I am sure that you can all tell me how your instructors at the range, or the various books you have read, prove that this is the wrong answer.

while we are at it, I politly asked a few questions myself earlier on. any takers?


----------



## mokita

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> now, lets say he has a few dozen hours at a range. he is in a dark room, woken up at 3 am. he is flooded with unfamiliar adrenaline. he is armed with about twice as much gun as he really should be using,
> 
> 
> 
> What specific gun would be "twice as much gun as he really should be using," and how do you go about making that determination?
> 
> After we know the answer, we will naturally want to know which gun is "just right" by your analysis and why?
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well, this goes back to threat assesment, and figuring out what you really need.
Click to expand...

As you know, I was specifically responding to your comment. What gun did you have in mind as constituting "twice as much gun as he really should be using?" I don't really understand the threat assessment comment. Do you think that a person should be prepared for only one threat? Does the average homeowner have any way to determine precisely what threat he might face? For example, if his home in invaded, he might face one criminal, or several. Do you think he is unjustified in assuming that it might be several?


> quote:
> I was tought to go with firearms that would be considered very light by american standards - what we used was a simple 9mm - and to use a two shot pattern, repeated as nessasary.


I happen to like the 9mm, not for its stopping power, but for its compact size. At home, a small gun is not required. The thing that strikes me as odd, is that you have expressed a concern over penetration, but you immediately named (as your example of "light") a gun that is known primarily for its extreme penetration. With FMJ ammo, the 9mm punches holes like an ice pick. The 9mm is WAY AHEAD of most other handguns with respect to penetration. For example, in a test of the ranges that various handguns could penetrate a helmet:
_
RESULTS:
1. The special 9mm Parabellum case with a Cal 38 S&W bullet penetrated the M1 helmet at 50 yards, but not 60 yards.
2. The Winchester 9mm Parabellum (1,150 f/s velocity) penetrated the M1 helmet at 120 yards, but not at 130 yards.
3. The Canadian 9mm Parabellum (1,250 f/s velocity) penetrated the M1 helmet at 130 yards, but due to lack of longer range facilities was not fired beyond this point.
4. The Cal .45 ammunition penetrated the helmet at 30 yards, but not at 35 yards.

CONCLUSION:
It is concluded that the Canadian 9mm Parabellum ammunition with the 1250 f/s velocity, had a longer range penetration power than any of the other ammunition tested.

Prepared By: L O Spaulding, Ordnance Engineer
H F Hawthorne, Ordnance Engineer
E W Hopkins, Head Ordnance Engineer_

https://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6115&highlight=helmet+.45acp



> quote: It seems that every suburb in america is full of 400 pound ex-NFL offensive linemen on PCP breaking into peoples houses in the middle of the night, so people seem to like to go with a bigger weapon here.


So, what formula do you suggest for the homeowner? If he is prepared to defend himself against one 135 pound intruder and he encounters two 250 pound intruders, then what? Why do you care?



> quote:more importantly, I was tought to take into consideration your enviroment - the way most buildings are made here, I would probrably forgo a handgun altogether and get a 20 gauge shotgun with light shot - no 7 or such, if I really thought that I needed a firearm for protection of my house and family.


I would agree that a 20 ga shotgun could work fine in some situations, even if loaded with #7-1/2 shot. Personally, I would not care to trust my life on the assumption that the criminal I might have to stop would be wearing a heavy leather jacket, or that I could be sure that I could make a head shot and wait until he was close enough that shot size doesn't matter. Do you think it is not sporting, or poor citizenship, if someone defends her life with a 12 ga?



> quote:but the bottom line I think that in almost every case any firearm is going to be more than is needed for the threats faced.


I disagree, but naturally I don't care if you want to defend yourself or not.


----------



## globetrotter

what gun was I sepcifically refering to? for the most part, rifles, large shotguns, large pistols. I say, for the most part, because if you live on a farm and their is a chance that you will be attacked by people that you can see from a mile away, maybe the best weapon for you is a M-1. I can't imagine that many other situations where it would be a good fit. an assult rifle is a fanstastic weapon to fight with - and some of the nice small assult carbines are great weapons, but I can't imagine the living situation that would make it a good fit. large shotguns and large pistols because I think that most people go for more firepower than they should, at the expense of control and ease of use. 

do I think that a person should be prepared for only one threat? yes, actually I do. I think that the small advantage that you get by being prepared for "multiple threats" is nowhere near the disadvantage of not being clear cut as to what you do when faced with a threat. or, to be more clear - I think that is is a great deal more likly to get killed trying to decide on using one firearm or another, rather than getting killed because your firearm isn't powerfull enough. also, I think that your firearm should be as strong as it can be, without it being able to blast though your walls and while being very managable for you. it isn't that difficult to assess what the probable threats are in your area. 

I named the 9 mm as the firearm that I was raised on. it is light, in that it is a very easy to manage and control firearm. and, yes, it has great penetration which is why safety ammo is a good idea, and why a I said that I would robrably not use it for home defence, myself.

and this links in with the "formula" as you call it - I would suggest going with a single weapon. I have not done a study of penetration, myself. I have seen a number of people shot, and done a little shooting myself, I have yet to see somebody get hit by a 9 mm and keep presenting a threat. I don't know if arabs have significantly lighter skeletal systems than americans, but I doubt that. there seems to be a mythology in america that one needs to shoot with a very heavy weapon to stop the threat, and that hasn't been my experience. I would also say that I would prefer to have better control over the weapon and generate more rounds, and more accurate rounds, than one heavy round - by that I mean, I would rather put 6 9mm rounds into a targts chest than one 45 round. 

why do I care? part of is is simle aethestics, part of it is wondering where it stops. I have seem semi-automatic AK-47's being offered as self deffence weapons, which I guess is the logical progression up from a .45, and that worries me. 

on a 20 gauge - sportsmanship has nothing to do with it, maybe citizenship is the right term. although I admit to not knowing a hell of a lot about shotguns, what I do know is that a 20 gauge loaded with bird shot will not endanger your neighbors, and will do a pretty good job at knicking down most people, and should create the type of wound that will be very difficult for a person to fight with.


----------



## JLibourel

Kind of ironic that this thread should arise while I was away at the SHOT Show, representing Gun World magazine, which I edit. I have been making my living editing and writing for gun mags for the past 26 1/2 years. Started out with Guns & Ammo, started and edited Handguns magazine for over 12 years, and have been editing Gun World for the past seven. I have "third level" handgun certification from Gunsite, Thunder Ranch and Front Sight--three of the most prestigious training academies. I have participated in a variety of handgun competitions with varying success, but I have won a passel of trophies in my time! I've got a lot of handgun and have fired and evaluated many, many more. I have more .45 auto pistols alone than I do Allen-Edmonds shoes, which may tell forum regulars something. Many of you know this already, but I thought I'd recite my credentials for the many who may not.

A few random observations on various things that have come up in this thread.

A number of people seem to think that a high level of proficiency is required to defend oneself with a handgun. The fact is that relatively few defensive shootings are really marksmanship problems. Especially for non-law-enforcement personnel, most are at near-contact range. Mindset, determination, coolness in action are much more important than pure skill, although the latter can reinforce confidence that leads to coolness.

As a philosophic matter I am in favor of lenient, "red state" concealed carry laws. Having said that, I'll have to say that a lot of these "armed life style" geeks I run across seem so nutty they scare me almost as much as the genuine bad guys, combining as they do large helpings of paranoia and bloodthirstiness. Were my part of California more permissive about such matters, I would carry some of the time, much of the time not. 

On more specific points, I would have to disagree with FlatSix about the ease of "beating the drop." Dave Arnold, who saw most of the great pistol of shooters of our era in action and competed against many, told me that the ONLY man he ever saw who could consistently beat the drop was the great Bill Jordan. As those among you who are gun-savvy know, Jordan's speed and skill were positively superhuman. Dave and I ran a lot of tests on this matter. We found that a totally untrained man with his pistol levelled at a target could get react to a signal and get a shot off in about 0.4 second. Trained men were a bit faster, but the principal difference was that their shots were grouped a lot better. Now, disregarding what a lot of blowhards will tell you, anyone who can draw from a practical concealment holster and get a shot off in less than a second (not counting reaction time) is awfully damn good. What this means is that attempting to beat the drop is likely to get two or more bullets headed your way before you can get your first one off. 

As to the claim that Jeff Cooper was the "foremost pistolero of the 20th century," that will get you a lot of arguments, especially from some individuals who have known Cooper pretty well. One man who had shot a lot with Cooper in his prime told me I was a better shot than Cooper (and I was in my mid-50s then), and, believe me, I'm no Robbie Leatham. Jeff has been a very talented writer, very good at expounding and synthezing doctrine, and like most reasonably successful men he has been an excellent self-promoter. Probably an even better self-promoter was Elmer Keith, but that's another story. I saw Jeff this past Saturday. It was really heartbreaking to see a man who had once been such an imposing, commanding figure of manhood reduced to a shrivelled living skeleton. I have known Jeff for well over 20 years and was reading his material 20 years before that. (Interesting, my mother knew some of Jeff's family quite well before WWII but had no recollection of Jeff himself, probably a result of the tendency of pretty and popular young women to regard boys even slightly younger than themselves as being beneath their radar.)

As to Jeff's comment about choosing a 1911 in .45 caliber because it isn't made in a larger one, there now is a .50 caliber 1911, no larger than the regular kind, made by an outfit called Guncrafter Industries. Just had a meeting with the head of that firm yesterday.

I don't know about characterizing the 1911 as an "elegant" gun. Jeff himself once said many years ago that it's primary image was "coarse, brutal, deadly." Compared to a lot of these contemporary plastic jobs, I suppose it does seem elegant.

If I had to nominate the most elegant and sexy defensive sidearm of the contemporary era, it might be the six-inch Colt Python, although not necessarily the most practical. In smaller guns, the Walther PP series would have to be up there, and not just because of the Bond connection, I think.

"Trad" defensive handguns: Most any Colt or Smith & Wesson revolver made between 1905 and 1941, with perhaps the Colt Detective Special being the standout; Remington Model 51; Colt .32 and .380 pocket models.


----------



## FlatSix

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_On more specific points, I would have to disagree with FlatSix about the ease of "beating the drop." Dave Arnold, who saw most of the great pistol of shooters of our era in action and competed against many, told me that the ONLY man he ever saw who could consistently beat the drop was the great Bill Jordan. As those among you who are gun-savvy know, Jordan's speed and skill were positively superhuman. Dave and I ran a lot of tests on this matter. We found that a totally untrained man with his pistol levelled at a target could get react to a signal and get a shot off in about 0.4 second. Trained men were a bit faster, but the principal difference was that their shots were grouped a lot better. Now, disregarding what a lot of blowhards will tell you, anyone who can draw from a practical concealment holster and get a shot off in less than a second (not counting reaction time) is awfully damn good. What this means is that attempting to beat the drop is likely to get two or more bullets headed your way before you can get your first one off.


I would not disagree with Dave Arnold; I therefore conclude that I was lucky in my choice of pseudo-opponents.

That being said, I just received a mailing indicating that I may be eligible for the "Globetrotter Defense School." It's fantastic; this is the curriculum

*Day One*

0700 Classroom work: Our Founder Lectures On The Many Caps He Done Peeled

1200 Break for lunch and/or gnawing one's own feet off to escape returning to the classroom

1300 Shoot/No Shoot Workshop: The Answer Is Pretty Much Always No Shoot, Unless You Have Already Shot People, In Which Case You Broke The Rule Last Time And Need To Spend Some Time Feeling Bad About That

1900 Dinner

1930 Film: _Full Metal Jacket_

*Day Two*

0700 Handing Over Of Firearms For Inspection

0800 That Was A Trick: You Ain't Getting Them Back

0900 Our Founder Administers Deadly Beatings

1200 Lunch

1300 Defibrilator Workshop: When Hearts Attack

1600 More Ranting By Our Founder, Now Verging On The Rather Disturbing

1900 Healthy Dinner

1930 Film: _Gimme Shelter_

*Day Three*

0700 No, There's No Refund

0800 I Mean It

0900 Graduation Certificates Handed Out

1000 Have Your Photo Taken With Our Founder, As He Breaks Your Arms

FINIS

I'm wondering if I should go; it's cheaper than Thunder Ranch

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

"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 JLibourel_On more specific points, I would have to disagree with FlatSix about the ease of "beating the drop." Dave Arnold, who saw most of the great pistol of shooters of our era in action and competed against many, told me that the ONLY man he ever saw who could consistently beat the drop was the great Bill Jordan. As those among you who are gun-savvy know, Jordan's speed and skill were positively superhuman. Dave and I ran a lot of tests on this matter. We found that a totally untrained man with his pistol levelled at a target could get react to a signal and get a shot off in about 0.4 second. Trained men were a bit faster, but the principal difference was that their shots were grouped a lot better. Now, disregarding what a lot of blowhards will tell you, anyone who can draw from a practical concealment holster and get a shot off in less than a second (not counting reaction time) is awfully damn good. What this means is that attempting to beat the drop is likely to get two or more bullets headed your way before you can get your first one off.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not disagree with Dave Arnold; I therefore conclude that I was lucky in my choice of pseudo-opponents.
> 
> That being said, I just received a mailing indicating that I may be eligible for the "Globetrotter Defense School." It's fantastic; this is the curriculum
> 
> *Day One*
> 
> 0700 Classroom work: Our Founder Lectures On The Many Caps He Done Peeled
> 
> 1200 Break for lunch and/or gnawing one's own feet off to escape returning to the classroom
> 
> 1300 Shoot/No Shoot Workshop: The Answer Is Pretty Much Always No Shoot, Unless You Have Already Shot People, In Which Case You Broke The Rule Last Time And Need To Spend Some Time Feeling Bad About That
> 
> 1900 Dinner
> 
> 1930 Film: _Full Metal Jacket_
> 
> *Day Two*
> 
> 0700 Handing Over Of Firearms For Inspection
> 
> 0800 That Was A Trick: You Ain't Getting Them Back
> 
> 0900 Our Founder Administers Deadly Beatings
> 
> 1200 Lunch
> 
> 1300 Defibrilator Workshop: When Hearts Attack
> 
> 1600 More Ranting By Our Founder, Now Verging On The Rather Disturbing
> 
> 1900 Healthy Dinner
> 
> 1930 Film: _Gimme Shelter_
> 
> *Day Three*
> 
> 0700 No, There's No Refund
> 
> 0800 I Mean It
> 
> 0900 Graduation Certificates Handed Out
> 
> 1000 Have Your Photo Taken With Our Founder, As He Breaks Your Arms
> 
> FINIS
> 
> I'm wondering if I should go; it's cheaper than Thunder Ranch
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> "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...

well, dude, you may be a very annoying guy, but you are witty, can't argue that.


----------



## Dr James Ryan

You guys are cracking me up, haha.

JLibourel, there was a rumor GLOCK was going to unveil something brand new at the SHOT show. Did you get any word on that?


----------



## Liberty Ship

Flatsix, that was funny. I might suggest, however, that your syllabus would only be for globetrotter's introductory offering. I'm sure that the actual course for certification would be some 1,000 classroom hours and would result in a Certificate of Non-Certification, the highest award avilable to anyone.

It is altogether fitting that as we approach 400 responses to this thread that we should lapse into humor. In that spirit, I am pasting below one of the funniest pieces I have ever read about firearms. (Actually, there aren't that many funny pieces about firearms.) And for the many anti-gunners who coinciendtaly have no sense of humor, I guess I must say for the record that I have a strict rule separating alcohol and firearms, don't try this at home, etc, etc.

A Beer and a Shot 
Probing the synergy between guns and liquor. 
By Jay Forman
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2001, at 12:00 AM ET 


Note: The author of this article fabricated details of a later article for Slate. Click here for more information. 

This column contains descriptions of depraved and immoral acts and is for informational purposes only. Neither Slate nor the author advocates this sort of behavior. If you don't want to hear about these sorts of things, don't read these kinds of articles.


Guns and liquor go together like peanut butter and chocolate. Shooting a gun is an exhilarating experience, and anybody who says otherwise is either lying or has never actually pulled a trigger. And drinking can add a lot to the experience. Ted Nugent aside, lots of gun owners enjoy a cold foamer along with their pump-action Mossberg. Playing with guns adds structure to any bender. Sometimes a game of Beer Pong or Hungry, Thirsty Hippos just doesn't generate the level of excitement and sense of purpose that many hard-core partiers crave. Guns do. When you shoot a gun drunk, you get results. Large, gaping results. Whether you are blasting gin bottles off the roof of a junked Camaro or simply getting the cat out of the tree, squeezing the trigger is a wonderful way to cut loose. It is the ultimate in instant gratification. It is American expressionism.

People do stupid things while drunk. We all know that. The advantage of guns is that they throw wide the doors of opportunity for stupid drunken behavior. A drunk staggering down the street is comical. A drunk staggering down the street with a gun is alarming. Oh, the places he might go!

Having access to a weapon while tossing back beers allows drinkers to come up with bold new solutions to problems. Two friends of mine once shared a rat-infested house in Baton Rouge because the rent was cheap. They saved money on an exterminator by simply picking off any rats that wandered into range with a .22-caliber rifle. They'd kick back on the sofa, drink beer, and snuff rodents. It was like living inside a big video game. Instead of just a boring evening at home on the sofa, suddenly the night had purpose. Drinking games arose from the situation, and points and penalties were awarded for hits and misses. But on top of just plain having fun, they got a sense of accomplishment out of it as well. Guns allowed them to take a proactive role with their vermin issues.

One night I was over at my friend Haim's apartment in New Orleans, slamming JÃ¤germeister, a drink that lends itself to certain abuses. This viscous treat is a shortcut to The Zone, and six or eight shots of it will airlift you to a place it might otherwise take a whole long night of methodical drinking to reach. Haim and I were trying to think of something to do, and we ended up deciding to build a homemade silencer for a beat-up old AR-7 rifle he had bought at a pawnshop a few weeks earlier. The gun was only worth about $60 and was ripe for experimentation, and the Germanic liquor added a sense of urgency to the occasion. Silencers are illegal, but Haim had found step-by-step instructions on how to make one in some paramilitary magazine he had bought at a gun show. The magazine was full of neat home projects like that; I imagine that if Martha Stewart lived in a trailer with an abusive husband, this would be the kind of stuff she'd write. And the world would be a better place for it.

The first stop was at a metal shop Haim had access to, where he used the drill press to vent the barrel in several locations. We then brought the gun back to his apartment to finish the job. We slid 10 large washers down along the barrel at even intervals and stuffed the spaces in between with alternating layers of steel wool and cotton wadding. Then we cut a length of PVC pipe and fitted it over the barrel like a sleeve, so that it sat atop the washers. We iced the whole package with duct tape, loaded the magazine with .22-caliber high-velocity LRs, and were good to go.

Haim's place was in a quiet residential neighborhood, an ideal proving ground. If the silencer worked here, it would work anywhere. The first thing I plugged was a jar of cocktail onions I carefully placed atop the mantle in the living room. I put it in a Ziploc baggie, thinking that would be sufficient to contain the breakage. I was wrong. When I popped it, the bottle exploded, scattering shrapnel and cocktail onions indiscriminately throughout the room. But the silencer actually worked. You could hear the action of the rifle kickback and a heavily muffled pop, but that was all. Our experiment was a success! It felt great, and all it took was a little JÃ¤germeister, a survivalist pulp magazine, and some good old Yankee know-how. We celebrated with impromptu ballistics tests on ordinary household items throughout the night.

A drunk with a gun and a mission is a happy drunk. One of the best times I ever had potting with firearms was when a group of friends and I decided to rub out a beaver who had proved himself to be a nuisance. He had dammed a creek on my friend Stuart's farm and flooded the road, and for this he was to die. About eight of us staggered out into the backwoods of Mississippi that night, twisted on rye whisky and horribly armed. We had shotguns, assault rifles, and high-tech pistols. The only things missing were a pitchfork and some burning torches. Memories of what happened down at the creek that night are hazy, but I do remember it began with Dave jumping up and down atop the lodge screaming for the beaver to "show himself," then shoving his 12-gauge into the pile of sticks and mud and pulling the trigger. He backed off, and we emptied everything we had into the dam. Thumps, staccato cracks, whoops, pops, and rebel yells followed. Warren's laser sight swept crazily through the smoke filled air, adding an ominous sense of the surreal to the dark Mississippi night. Finally it was over. Off in the distance an owl hooted. The beaver remains at large.

A gun can make a night of ordinary drinking far more interesting. Nobody is talking to you at the party? Bring a gun! That'll get their attention. Want to kick that guy's ass at the bar but can't? Bring a gun! He might have spent a lifetime mastering the subtleties of aikido, but he's no match for your Glock. Why work out if you can own a gun? As Chris Rock said, "You got pecs? I got Tecs." A bottle will give you the liquid courage to follow your dreams, and your gun will make sure nobody gets in your way.


----------



## johnapril

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> on a 20 gauge - sportsmanship has nothing to do with it, maybe citizenship is the right term. although I admit to not knowing a hell of a lot about shotguns, what I do know is that a 20 gauge loaded with bird shot will not endanger your neighbors, and will do a pretty good job at knicking down most people, and should create the type of wound that will be very difficult for a person to fight with.


The vice president can attest to that.


----------



## johnapril

Home defense: pliers and a blowtorch


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> A number of people seem to think that a high level of proficiency is required to defend oneself with a handgun. The fact is that relatively few defensive shootings are really marksmanship problems. Especially for non-law-enforcement personnel, most are at near-contact range. Mindset, determination, coolness in action are much more important than pure skill, although the latter can reinforce confidence that leads to coolness.


JL, thank you for joining in the fray.

not to beat a dead horse, yet some more, but I would like to clarify that it has been my position from the begining that the actual act of pointing a shooting a firearm, or hitting a paper target, is not that difficult nor does it require extensive training.

I do believe that the ability to keep, store, maintain and usefirearms, over an extended period and intermixed with your general life activities requires a deeply internalized understanding of the security issues which I find hard to believe can be picked up easily.

I also believe that, in those instances where a firearm can really be helpful in influencing a conflict in your favor that could not have been influenced without a firearm, the skills required in operating the firearm safely and accurately are more than can easily be picked up casually. by that I mean - if you really are involved in a shoot out with somebody armed with a firearm, or multiple people, the skills needed will involve being aware of angles of fire, fireing while moving, taking cover, firing up and down stairs, reloading under stress, etc.

and, concerning the point that most self defence shootings are at near contact range - wouldn't you then think that a firearm may not be needed? at near contact, a night stick or CS-gas may very well be just as effective, no?


----------



## mokita

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also believe that, in those instances where a firearm can really be helpful in influencing a conflict in your favor that could not have been influenced without a firearm, the skills required in operating the firearm safely and accurately are more than can easily be picked up casually. by that I mean - if you really are involved in a shoot out with somebody armed with a firearm, or multiple people, the skills needed will involve being aware of angles of fire, fireing while moving, taking cover, firing up and down stairs, reloading under stress, etc.
> 
> and, concerning the point that most self defence shootings are at near contact range - wouldn't you then think that a firearm may not be needed? at near contact, a night stick or CS-gas may very well be just as effective, no?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Your comments are self-contradictory. If self-defense shootings happen at close range (they do), then the comments you made do not apply. A professional defense instructor once told me that the typical self-defense shooting happened at a distance of two yards.
> 
> One of the important reasons people find firearms useful in self-defense is that they are effective in stopping the criminal by presentation of the threat of the gun. I have mentioned this several times, but you seem to forget it. Secondly, when a firearm must be discharged, it is a great equalizer in that a weak woman, elderly person, handicapped person, etc. can use it to stop a criminal who is much stronger.
Click to expand...


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also believe that, in those instances where a firearm can really be helpful in influencing a conflict in your favor that could not have been influenced without a firearm, the skills required in operating the firearm safely and accurately are more than can easily be picked up casually. by that I mean - if you really are involved in a shoot out with somebody armed with a firearm, or multiple people, the skills needed will involve being aware of angles of fire, fireing while moving, taking cover, firing up and down stairs, reloading under stress, etc.
> 
> and, concerning the point that most self defence shootings are at near contact range - wouldn't you then think that a firearm may not be needed? at near contact, a night stick or CS-gas may very well be just as effective, no?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Your comments are self-contradictory. If self-defense shootings happen at close range (they do), then the comments you made do not apply. A professional defense instructor once told me that the typical self-defense shooting happened at a distance of two yards.
> 
> One of the important reasons people find firearms useful in self-defense is that they are effective in stopping the criminal by presentation of the threat of the gun. I have mentioned this several times, but you seem to forget it. Secondly, when a firearm must be discharged, it is a great equalizer in that a weak woman, elderly person, handicapped person, etc. can use it to stop a criminal who is much stronger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me try to express myself more clearly, I don't believe that I am contradicting myself, I may not be as clear as I would like, though.
> 
> the vast majority of self defence shootings are within 2 meters. I think that these can be avoided, in most cases. if you can get to within two meters of a person, you can hit him with a stick. if he were that much of a danger to you, he would have killed you before he got that close. (again, I say in most cases. as I said above, in the case of an old woman, or for that matter any woman or person who really needs the extra power of a firearm, perhaps it is justified, on the other hand, a cloud of CS-gas at that range does wonders, too).
> 
> what I was refering to were those situations were a firearm really makes the difference between life and death, that one in a 500 million chance that an armed person does break into your house with the intent to kill you, and the only way that you possibly can save your life is to engage in a firefight. and, should that happen, no matter how big your gun, I think that you are screwed.
> 
> again, I agree that in most cases just showing the firearm is enough to stop the threat. I (and I mention this as a personal experience, not trying to present myself as a super hero) have stopped a few threats of violence, with nothing but yelling, and in one case, branishing a baton. I am really not a very scary looking individual. My brother, who has had no military training what so ever, and no martial arts training, has stopped at least one home invasion of his house, as well as a mugging, without a firearm (in the mugging, he threw a large 7/11 coffee on his mugger, in the home invasion he shouted and jumped on the stairs). I am not convinced that showing the firearm was any more effective that blasting somebody with CS-gas and hitting them in the knee with a baton.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kav

For what it's worth, my first shooting was inside a ship passageway. The power was off, no lights and @ 120 degrees easy. I saw and heard a AK 47 go off. I dumped 5 rounds of my 1911 and killed two assailants. At least after half my crew poured aboard with battle lanterns and M 16s thats what we found. Somebody finally looked at my left thigh and realised blood was pouring from a hole. Again, luckily the round apparently keyholed after ricocheting and merely plowed a rather nasty, but repairable tissue wound with no major arterys or bone involved.I was so full of adrenalin I never felt it. The second incident involved a pirate fishing vessel. They thought my lifeboat was a joke until I used the unorthodox strategy of ramming and firing the bronze projectile from our line throwing gun into the flying bridge- sending the crew below. We saw bald eagle pelts hanging from the radio line boarding. This idiot bursts out of a hatch and slashes my wrist with a filleting knife. I hammered his nose and forehead with my 1911 and he went down. A second burst out with a shotgun and fired. I received 5 pellets ( again, luck made it birdshot)in my right ring fingertip pulling the hatch open from the side. My .45 was in my left hand. I spun and put the magazine into my opponent. It took 8, not from fear but his heavilly quilted foul weather coat and waterproofs absorbing those big pumpkin balls. No Weaver stances, double hand grips or even a site picture.It was quick, disorganised and I later realised I was scared. The second shoting was a long and messy affair, involving a (supposedly) friendly government consul pushing for my prosecution, being interviewed about details I never took note of and finally being quietly transferred. That, gentlemen, are two examples, unusual but real of a gunfight. My training? basic pistol qualification with a Smith and Wesson Victory and later the 1911 shooting paper on two afternoons, casual practise with my own 1911 and reading Bill Jordan and Ed mc Givern[:0]


----------



## tiger02

> quote:_Originally posted by Daywalker_
> I really have come to believe here that you object to us non-professionals using firearms because you think it somehow diminishes your....I don't know what, exactly. But your attempts to make the rest of us look like incopetent ninnies is not working.


Damn Zach, you must have touched a nerve or three in all those pages I'm still not going to read.

Daywalker, I'm going to presume to speak for globetrotter and suggest that you are mistaken. In my experience it is usually the educated amateur who is dismissive of the knowledge gained through experience and professionalism. Kav's story is actually a pretty good example. With consistent training at live fire ranges his opponents would not be any more dead, but both operations would have been much cleaner and he possibly would have avoided injury. As it was I count 13 rounds for only three dead, plus getting shot twice himself.

By the way, Kav, if that's not a true story it should be [8D]

Tom


----------



## globetrotter

excellent story, Kav. not to nit pick about your training - but doesn't coast guard have a basic training and excersizes in boarding ships and so on? 

Thanks, Tom, always nice to have a brother sticking up for you. I think that I did touch a nerve or three.


----------



## skalogre

Omg. I avoided this thread for a while. Globetrotter, if it helps, I *think* I know where you are coming from. I also have difficulty seeing the whole "guns for self-defense" argument as usually portrayed. probably a cultural thing in the end, though.

I think we need a new equivalent of the "black suit" thread to calm things down a bit


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by skalogre_
> 
> Omg. I avoided this thread for a while. Globetrotter, if it helps, I *think* I know where you are coming from. I also have difficulty seeing the whole "guns for self-defense" argument as usually portrayed. probably a cultural thing in the end, though.
> 
> I think we need a new equivalent of the "black suit" thread to calm things down a bit


thanks


----------



## J. Homely

There are, I supppose, good reasons for some private citizens to require firearms. But those people tend to treat the issue, and the weapons with appropriate respect, and don't feel the need to hoot about it like the "woo-hoo, serious ****in' firepower!" crowd.


----------



## Briguy

I think globetrotter's thinking does accurately portray the real-life likelihood of a law abiding citizen's ever needing to resort to a firearm to protect their life. Acknowledging the low risk level most of us face is no more pro or con firearms or concealed carry than is acknowledging that it is snowing today indicative of a general support of snow. 

I, having a very low risk of ever facing a lethal threat, choose to go about armed much of the time. I also have two fire extinguishers in my home, always wear my seatbelt, maintain a healthy weight, and, when I was a single man-about-town, always wore a condom. A pistol is not as likely to be needed as any of the other things I just mentioned, but, if I do ever need it, I'm likely to need it very, very badly. 

If one chooses to go about armed, please do so safely, and pay attention to your surroundings so you can avoid trouble. If one chooses not to carry (assuming the choice is available), or cannot, then please pay attention to your surroundings so you can avoid trouble. And toss a can a pepper spray into your pocket, just in case.

Anyone know where I can buy a portable defibrillator? I think I need to improve my risk profile. If the Big Fat Guy with the pistol in his corpulent waistband keels over with a heart attack while waddling to the deli to get his lunch time pastrami, I want to be prepared.


----------



## mokita

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:if you can get to within two meters of a person, you can hit him with a stick.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, if you have a stick that is 2 meters in length. Is it your assumption that criminals are unarmed? If the criminal in question has a gun and you have a 2 meter stick, which of you is going to win in a confrontation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:if he were that much of a danger to you, he would have killed you before he got that close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If he is armed with a gun and you have a stick, he could do just that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote: (again, I say in most cases. as I said above, in the case of an old woman, or for that matter any woman or person who really needs the extra power of a firearm, perhaps it is justified, on the other hand, a cloud of CS-gas at that range does wonders, too).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think that a gun carrying criminal will retreat from a can of spray? Might he simply shoot you from beyond the range of your spray?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:again, I agree that in most cases just showing the firearm is enough to stop the threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. The victim must have a gun before he can point it at the criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I (and I mention this as a personal experience, not trying to present myself as a super hero) have stopped a few threats of violence, with nothing but yelling, and in one case, branishing a baton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we are supposed to believe that the criminals in question were carrying guns, but retreated in fear when you yelled at them?
Click to expand...


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:if you can get to within two meters of a person, you can hit him with a stick.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, if you have a stick that is 2 meters in length. Is it your assumption that criminals are unarmed? If the criminal in question has a gun and you have a 2 meter stick, which of you is going to win in a confrontation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:if he were that much of a danger to you, he would have killed you before he got that close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If he is armed with a gun and you have a stick, he could do just that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote: (again, I say in most cases. as I said above, in the case of an old woman, or for that matter any woman or person who really needs the extra power of a firearm, perhaps it is justified, on the other hand, a cloud of CS-gas at that range does wonders, too).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think that a gun carrying criminal will retreat from a can of spray? Might he simply shoot you from beyond the range of your spray?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:again, I agree that in most cases just showing the firearm is enough to stop the threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. The victim must have a gun before he can point it at the criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I (and I mention this as a personal experience, not trying to present myself as a super hero) have stopped a few threats of violence, with nothing but yelling, and in one case, branishing a baton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we are supposed to believe that the criminals in question were carrying guns, but retreated in fear when you yelled at them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didnt say that they were armed, I said that they threatened violence. and, yes, they did retreat, perhaps in fear, perhaps simply thinking that they could find an easier target. if they were armed, I would not have yelled at them - exept perhaps in the case when I had a baton with me - I would have given them my money. but even if I had a pistol in a holster, if they had pointed a gun at me, I would have given them my money, the pistol would not have helped me.
Click to expand...


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> I think globetrotter's thinking does accurately portray the real-life likelihood of a law abiding citizen's ever needing to resort to a firearm to protect their life. Acknowledging the low risk level most of us face is no more pro or con firearms or concealed carry than is acknowledging that it is snowing today indicative of a general support of snow.
> 
> I, having a very low risk of ever facing a lethal threat, choose to go about armed much of the time. I also have two fire extinguishers in my home, always wear my seatbelt, maintain a healthy weight, and, when I was a single man-about-town, always wore a condom. A pistol is not as likely to be needed as any of the other things I just mentioned, but, if I do ever need it, I'm likely to need it very, very badly.
> 
> If one chooses to go about armed, please do so safely, and pay attention to your surroundings so you can avoid trouble. If one chooses not to carry (assuming the choice is available), or cannot, then please pay attention to your surroundings so you can avoid trouble. And toss a can a pepper spray into your pocket, just in case.
> 
> Anyone know where I can buy a portable defibrillator? I think I need to improve my risk profile. If the Big Fat Guy with the pistol in his corpulent waistband keels over with a heart attack while waddling to the deli to get his lunch time pastrami, I want to be prepared.


I hope that I have made it very clear, over the past 11 pages, that this is all I am saying - here is a gentleman who has taken a somber look at the situation, and has prepared for it in a rational way, who is trained and clear headed. and while I choose to do things differently, I respect the choices that he has made and the way he has addressed them.


----------



## Murrah

Liberty Ship and Flatsix:

How do you do you it? I bowed out of this ******** long ago. I'm convinced globetrotter's self-defense tactic in a robbery would be to hit the robber with 824 internet posts, anesthetizing the would-be assailant.

globetrotter: I know the drill, I'm an amateur, you've been bathed in blood, I hope neither of us have to ever use a gun.....etc., etc.


----------



## Kav

Present Coast Guard training involves extensive tactical training in boarding and firearm tactics. This was brought on when drug trafficing began escalating in violence. Like many programs, ie sniper training, certain skills are allowed to atrophy between 'wars.' The days when people regarded the CG as some federal courtesy patrol and nuisance to commercial interests has fortunately shifted. My second encounter was one of a few early incidents that sent a wakeup call. Aside from some scary drug interceptions, the other real scary incident was yet another 'fish pirate' They decided to take off with the 3 man boarding crew huddled on deck with all of one .45 and 2 spare magazines. Things were dicy until the current namesake of the famous revenue cutter Rush came over the horizon at full throttle with the forward 5" swinging around.


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by Murrah_
> 
> Liberty Ship and Flatsix:
> 
> How do you do you it? I bowed out of this ******** long ago. I'm convinced globetrotter's self-defense tactic in a robbery would be to hit the robber with 824 internet posts, anesthetizing the would-be assailant.
> 
> globetrotter: I know the drill, I'm an amateur, you've been bathed in blood, I hope neither of us have to ever use a gun.....etc., etc.


Thank you, Murrah. I love the ******** analogy. But when it comes to firearms debate, "please don't throw me in that briar patch!" The scope of the debate is beyond globetrotter's ken. Forgive me, globetrotter for speaking of you in the third person; the amazing thing about these forums is that the discussion is at once public and personal. Similarly, there is a poetic nature to what we do here; poetry is at the same time both universal and very personal.

Globetrotter, you seem to be very focused on the discrete, tactical risks associated with universal firearms ownership. But you seem to be missing the effect that univerasl firearms ownerhship has on the ethos of the society that does not attempt to infringe it. The keeping and bearing of arms results in a population, a citizenry, very different in dispositon from the flock of subjects who, unarmed, rely upon their Government for their safety and security. We are talking the difference between Feudalism and a Republic. I can speak of this from the direct experience of taking people from "unarmed" to "armed" through trainging them and seeing in the eyes of my students the transformation from "victim" to "armed citizen."

Guns are not only the tool you see them as, but they are also a symbol. I am fighting for, arguing on behalf of, the symbol. The fact that firearms are a tool is secondary:

"Metal and Wood"
by Dennis Bateman

The following essay was originally published at www.TheFiringLine.com

It is a rare person who does not attach some sort of value or emotion to some physical object or to an event. A home becomes more than a building. A statue of the Virgin Mary, a crucifix, a flag or a song, or even a photograph can stir emotions greater than the value of the material item.

I have a piece of paper showing I served in the military until I was discharged honorably. But, oh, the memories that piece of paper conjures up. The friends, the fun times. The bad times. The times when we were bound closer to strangers than to our own families and, in frightening chaos, our lives hung by a thread.

Many of our friends died far from home. Ask us about the feeling of "American soil" upon returning to the land we loved. Ask those returning soldiers about America.

Remember the old, faintly humorous band of American Legionnaires, wearing out-dated military uniforms straining at the buttons. But, God how proudly they marched. Grinning, waving to friends and families, and always, always "The Flag!" Ask them if the flag is mere cloth, I dare you.

See the elderly lady sitting in a lawn chair watching the fourth of July parade. Three flags carefully folded some forty years ago into triangles now rest in her lap - one for each lost son. Ask her if those flags are mere cloth, I dare you.

Look at the old man quietly crying, leaning against the Iwo Jiima Memorial at Arlington Cemetery. As he turns to you, smiles with some embarrassment, and says in a choked whisper, "I was there." Ask him, "Is it just metal and clay?" Ask him. I dare you.

The Wall. My God, the Wall. See the young man lightly tracing the name of his father there inscribed. Ask him if its just rock. Ask him. I dare you.

My guns? Theyâ€™re of little real value compared to my family and my home. They are toys, or tools, or both. But what those guns represent to me is greater than all of us, greater than myself, my family, indeed greater than our entire generation. What could be of such value?

The freedom of man to live within civil, self-imposed limitations rather than under restrictions placed upon him by a ruler or a ruling class.

Imagine the daring, the bravery of a few men to declare they intended to create a new country, independent of the burden of their established Rulers!

Those men we call our forefathers were brilliant men. They could have maneuvered themselves into positions of influence within the structure of the times, but they did not. They struggled to free themselves from tyranny. They wrote the Declaration of Independence. And they backed up their words and ideals with metal and wood.

They knew the dangers of such dreams and actions. They knew it was a frightening and dangerous venture into the unknown when they dared reach beyond their grasp for a vision - for an ideal. But they dared to dedicate themselves to achieve Liberty and Freedom for their children, and their childrenâ€™s children, through the generations.

Imagine the dreams and yearnings of centuries finally being reduced to the written word. The Rights of "We the People!" instead of the "Powers of the Monarchy."

Our forefathers dared to create a new government - a new form of government. And they knew that any organization has, as its first and foremost goal, its continued existence. Second only to that it strives to increase its power. It plots, it devises, it maneuvers to achieve control over its environment - over its subjects.

Our Forefathers decided to make America different from any country, anywhere, at any time in the entire history of the entire world. This country, this new nation of immigrants, would be based upon the concept that people could rule themselves better than any single person or small group of persons could rule them.

Other countries have had outstanding documents with guarantees for its citizens - but the citizens have become enslaved. How, these great men pondered, can we ensure this new government will remain subject to the will of the People?

They wanted limits upon this new government. Therefore, our forefathers wrote limitations into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And one of those Rights was that metal and wood, as the final power of the people, would secure this country for the future generations.

Metal and wood were the means by which we won our freedom.

Metal and wood were the means by which we kept our freedom.

Metal and wood may be the means by which we regain our freedom.

Metal and wood are the final power of the people. Take away the metal and wood and the people become powerless - they can only beg, they supplicate for favors.

We are unique in our ability to rule ourselves but we are letting it slip away. Today we compromise. We try to appease manâ€™s insatiable appetite for power by throwing him bits of our freedoms. But the insatiable appetite for power can not be appeased. The freedoms we feed him only make us weaker and him stronger. We must conquer him and again ensure the "Blessings of Liberty" won for us by our forefathers.

We must be ready to use metal and wood again, for if we are ready, truly ready, we may be able to conquer the monster with words - for in its heart it is a coward. But if we continue to feed the monster our freedoms, we will become too weak to win, to weak even to fight, and we will become a conquered people. We will have sold ourselves and our future generations into servitude.

If words fail us, we will use metal and wood, we will regain what we have lost, we will achieve what we seek, we will guarantee the America of our forefathers for the future generations.

So you see, our guns are more than metal and wood. They are our heritage of freedom. They are the universally understood symbol that the government, no matter how big and strong it may be, answers to us! They are the tools we will use to prevent tyranny in the land of our forefathers and our children. So, ask me what my guns mean to me. Ask my children what our guns mean to them. Ask us. I dare you.


----------



## marc_au

This is becoming like the American/Trad topic.

Are there trad pistols? Sorry if it's been covered, l hadn't read the whole topoic yet.

*GR8MAN (The Shooman) B8MAN.*


----------



## JLibourel

Yes, Marc, there are Trad handguns. Check out my post on page 10.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Murrah_
> 
> Liberty Ship and Flatsix:
> 
> How do you do you it? I bowed out of this ******** long ago. I'm convinced globetrotter's self-defense tactic in a robbery would be to hit the robber with 824 internet posts, anesthetizing the would-be assailant.
> 
> globetrotter: I know the drill, I'm an amateur, you've been bathed in blood, I hope neither of us have to ever use a gun.....etc., etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Murrah. I love the ******** analogy. But when it comes to firearms debate, "please don't throw me in that briar patch!" The scope of the debate is beyond globetrotter's ken. Forgive me, globetrotter for speaking of you in the third person; the amazing thing about these forums is that the discussion is at once public and personal. Similarly, there is a poetic nature to what we do here; poetry is at the same time both universal and very personal.
> 
> Globetrotter, you seem to be very focused on the discrete, tactical risks associated with universal firearms ownership. But you seem to be missing the effect that univerasl firearms ownerhship has on the ethos of the society that does not attempt to infringe it. The keeping and bearing of arms results in a population, a citizenry, very different in dispositon from the flock of subjects who, unarmed, rely upon their Government for their safety and security. We are talking the difference between Feudalism and a Republic. I can speak of this from the direct experience of taking people from "unarmed" to "armed" through trainging them and seeing in the eyes of my students the transformation from "victim" to "armed citizen."
> 
> Guns are not only the tool you see them as, but they are also a symbol. I am fighting for, arguing on behalf of, the symbol. The fact that firearms are a tool is secondary:
> 
> "Metal and Wood"
> by Dennis Bateman
> 
> The following essay was originally published at www.TheFiringLine.com
> 
> It is a rare person who does not attach some sort of value or emotion to some physical object or to an event. A home becomes more than a building. A statue of the Virgin Mary, a crucifix, a flag or a song, or even a photograph can stir emotions greater than the value of the material item.
> 
> I have a piece of paper showing I served in the military until I was discharged honorably. But, oh, the memories that piece of paper conjures up. The friends, the fun times. The bad times. The times when we were bound closer to strangers than to our own families and, in frightening chaos, our lives hung by a thread.
> 
> Many of our friends died far from home. Ask us about the feeling of "American soil" upon returning to the land we loved. Ask those returning soldiers about America.
> 
> Remember the old, faintly humorous band of American Legionnaires, wearing out-dated military uniforms straining at the buttons. But, God how proudly they marched. Grinning, waving to friends and families, and always, always "The Flag!" Ask them if the flag is mere cloth, I dare you.
> 
> See the elderly lady sitting in a lawn chair watching the fourth of July parade. Three flags carefully folded some forty years ago into triangles now rest in her lap - one for each lost son. Ask her if those flags are mere cloth, I dare you.
> 
> Look at the old man quietly crying, leaning against the Iwo Jiima Memorial at Arlington Cemetery. As he turns to you, smiles with some embarrassment, and says in a choked whisper, "I was there." Ask him, "Is it just metal and clay?" Ask him. I dare you.
> 
> The Wall. My God, the Wall. See the young man lightly tracing the name of his father there inscribed. Ask him if its just rock. Ask him. I dare you.
> 
> My guns? Theyâ€™re of little real value compared to my family and my home. They are toys, or tools, or both. But what those guns represent to me is greater than all of us, greater than myself, my family, indeed greater than our entire generation. What could be of such value?
> 
> The freedom of man to live within civil, self-imposed limitations rather than under restrictions placed upon him by a ruler or a ruling class.
> 
> Imagine the daring, the bravery of a few men to declare they intended to create a new country, independent of the burden of their established Rulers!
> 
> Those men we call our forefathers were brilliant men. They could have maneuvered themselves into positions of influence within the structure of the times, but they did not. They struggled to free themselves from tyranny. They wrote the Declaration of Independence. And they backed up their words and ideals with metal and wood.
> 
> They knew the dangers of such dreams and actions. They knew it was a frightening and dangerous venture into the unknown when they dared reach beyond their grasp for a vision - for an ideal. But they dared to dedicate themselves to achieve Liberty and Freedom for their children, and their childrenâ€™s children, through the generations.
> 
> Imagine the dreams and yearnings of centuries finally being reduced to the written word. The Rights of "We the People!" instead of the "Powers of the Monarchy."
> 
> Our forefathers dared to create a new government - a new form of government. And they knew that any organization has, as its first and foremost goal, its continued existence. Second only to that it strives to increase its power. It plots, it devises, it maneuvers to achieve control over its environment - over its subjects.
> 
> Our Forefathers decided to make America different from any country, anywhere, at any time in the entire history of the entire world. This country, this new nation of immigrants, would be based upon the concept that people could rule themselves better than any single person or small group of persons could rule them.
> 
> Other countries have had outstanding documents with guarantees for its citizens - but the citizens have become enslaved. How, these great men pondered, can we ensure this new government will remain subject to the will of the People?
> 
> They wanted limits upon this new government. Therefore, our forefathers wrote limitations into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And one of those Rights was that metal and wood, as the final power of the people, would secure this country for the future generations.
> 
> Metal and wood were the means by which we won our freedom.
> 
> Metal and wood were the means by which we kept our freedom.
> 
> Metal and wood may be the means by which we regain our freedom.
> 
> Metal and wood are the final power of the people. Take away the metal and wood and the people become powerless - they can only beg, they supplicate for favors.
> 
> We are unique in our ability to rule ourselves but we are letting it slip away. Today we compromise. We try to appease manâ€™s insatiable appetite for power by throwing him bits of our freedoms. But the insatiable appetite for power can not be appeased. The freedoms we feed him only make us weaker and him stronger. We must conquer him and again ensure the "Blessings of Liberty" won for us by our forefathers.
> 
> We must be ready to use metal and wood again, for if we are ready, truly ready, we may be able to conquer the monster with words - for in its heart it is a coward. But if we continue to feed the monster our freedoms, we will become too weak to win, to weak even to fight, and we will become a conquered people. We will have sold ourselves and our future generations into servitude.
> 
> If words fail us, we will use metal and wood, we will regain what we have lost, we will achieve what we seek, we will guarantee the America of our forefathers for the future generations.
> 
> So you see, our guns are more than metal and wood. They are our heritage of freedom. They are the universally understood symbol that the government, no matter how big and strong it may be, answers to us! They are the tools we will use to prevent tyranny in the land of our forefathers and our children. So, ask me what my guns mean to me. Ask my children what our guns mean to them. Ask us. I dare you.
Click to expand...

LS - I hate to fudge, but I agree with you about this, and disagree with you. and, I hate to make small philosophical distinctions, but that is how I see things:

I think that all citizens, and, like you said earlier, all gentlemen, should participate in the protection of their rights, thier livelyhood, their families, the community and the nation. I believe that they should do this as part of the military, or at least as part of a well regulated militia. I honestly don't think that a group of men with engraved .45's would be able to influence against a coup or a tyrany or an invasion.

now, if you said to me, "I believe that it is important to protect the rights of the people, so I served in the military, and I have a group of friends that meet together to train as a unit 4 times a year, and I have a safe with a semi-auto AR-15, 1000 rounds of ammo and a radio just in case we need it". then I would think that at least you are going about it the right way, even if I don't agree with all the way.

I don't see the rifle as the end here - I see it as a means to the end.

what I find strange are the people who say how they find it important to protect their community, but couldn't spare the time to serve in the miliatary and get trained.

anyway, goodnight


----------



## Kav

You don't need a engraved 45. Can anyone besides Jan tell why Hitler forbade any performances of THE WILLIAM TELL OVERTURE? Hint, has something to do with a young idealistic swiss.


----------



## Briguy

LibertyShip, Whew! 

I think, in summary form, you are stating what the US Attorney General, and most US Constitutional scholars, have concluded: that the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) was intended by the founders of the US to be a "doomsday" provision (quoting the AG) to provide one final, horrible, check against a government that has run amok; refused to obey the rule of law, the orders of the Courts, and the will of the people. 

Correct?


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> You don't need a engraved 45. Can anyone besides Jan tell why Hitler forbade any performances of THE WILLIAM TELL OVERTURE? Hint, has something to do with a young idealistic swiss.


Perhaps Hitler didn't like Stauffacher's speech in Schiller's Wilhemm Tell:

Yes! there's a limit to the despot's power!
When the oppress'd for justice looks in vain,
When his sore burden may no more be borne,
With fearless heart he makes appeal to Heaven,
And thence brings down his everlasting rights,
Which there abide, inalienably his,
And indestructible as are the stars.
Nature's primaeval state returns again,
Where man stands hostile to his fellow man;
And if all other means shall fail his need,
One last resource remains--his own good sword.
Our dearest treasures call to us for aid,
Against the oppressor's violence; we stand
For country, home, for wives, for children here!

Or, perhaps, Hitler didn't like the fact that the Swiss told him that their militia trained at 300 yards and his soldiers trained at 200 yards and that if Germany invaded Switzerland, the army would return home with no officers.


----------



## Briguy

Ok, law abiding, armed citizens, by their very existence, are a viable threat against the government descending into tyranny. They will also get smashed to bits if they ever try to confront a trained army head-to-head. 

Realistically, if the very worst happens, many, if not most, of the guns will be confiscated by government troops. Not all, though, and itâ€™s this leakage that will find its way to the resistance forces who will tie the government down in a guerilla war for decades. In this type of conflict, pistols are worthless. The Afghan guerillas showed the world what a handful of motivated men could do with a bunch of old Lee Enfields (and a few stinger missiles to keep the Hinds at bay). See also: Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Mindanao (sp?), and a host of others. 

This is all well and good, but a very different discussion than the use of deadly force by non-LEO/non-military persons with widely varying degrees of training.


----------



## Fogey

Does a gentleman ever remove his jacket in order to shoot?


----------



## JLibourel

I have long heard this argument that civilian gun ownership is "liberty's teeth"--that it keeps the government honest, from becoming tyrannical, etc.

I honestly don't know about that one: Certainly, gun ownership, mostly of selective-fire AKs, was widespread in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Conclusion: Firearms are not such a guarantor of liberty as commonly thought (in pro-gun circles) OR Saddam Hussein was not nearly the odious despot he is depicted as being in the U.S. media.

For that matter, gun ownership was very widespread (albeit regulated) in Nazi Germany. Guns were manufactured for civilian purchase in Nazi Germany until almost the very end of the war (in contrast to the USA). According to the late Jack Lott, the "gun grabbers" in the story were not the cruel Nazis but the Allied occupation forces, who would demand surrender of all privately owned firearms on pain of death and then drive half-tracks over them to ruin them. Interesting...


----------



## Kav

Liberty Ship- Maurice Bavaud was a swiss seminary student who grew fearfull of Hitler. It's almost comical, but he acquired a .25 ACP pocket pistol and spent considerable time stalking Adolf. He actually came very close when Hitler marched down the street commemorating his Beer hall Putsch. Unfortunetly Hitler came down the wrong side, surrounded by Children for propaganda and Maurice knew he couldn't make the shot. He was arrested by the Gestapo at the border with false papers, tortured and executed. There are some 40 odd known attempts from vague discussions to serious efforts. But when Hitler was briefed on Bavaud he really freaked. The reasons listed above ( and there is controversy within Switzerland itself over how determined the entire nation was) and an unknown swiss actually stalking him led to the total ban on the overture. Now if Maurice had a proper combat tuned colt, engraved or not---------


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does a gentleman ever remove his jacket in order to shoot?


Never! Nor would he ever wear a tie with short sleeves!


----------



## bosthist

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> "Metal and Wood"
> by Dennis Bateman
> 
> The following essay was originally published at www.TheFiringLine.com
> 
> It is a rare person who does not attach some sort of value or emotion to some physical object or to an event. A home becomes more than a building. A statue of the Virgin Mary, a crucifix, a flag or a song, or even a photograph can stir emotions greater than the value of the material item.
> 
> I have a piece of paper showing I served in the military until I was discharged honorably. But, oh, the memories that piece of paper conjures up. The friends, the fun times. The bad times. The times when we were bound closer to strangers than to our own families and, in frightening chaos, our lives hung by a thread.
> 
> Many of our friends died far from home. Ask us about the feeling of "American soil" upon returning to the land we loved. Ask those returning soldiers about America.
> 
> Remember the old, faintly humorous band of American Legionnaires, wearing out-dated military uniforms straining at the buttons. But, God how proudly they marched. Grinning, waving to friends and families, and always, always "The Flag!" Ask them if the flag is mere cloth, I dare you.
> 
> See the elderly lady sitting in a lawn chair watching the fourth of July parade. Three flags carefully folded some forty years ago into triangles now rest in her lap - one for each lost son. Ask her if those flags are mere cloth, I dare you.
> 
> Look at the old man quietly crying, leaning against the Iwo Jiima Memorial at Arlington Cemetery. As he turns to you, smiles with some embarrassment, and says in a choked whisper, "I was there." Ask him, "Is it just metal and clay?" Ask him. I dare you.
> 
> The Wall. My God, the Wall. See the young man lightly tracing the name of his father there inscribed. Ask him if its just rock. Ask him. I dare you.
> 
> My guns? Theyâ€™re of little real value compared to my family and my home. They are toys, or tools, or both. But what those guns represent to me is greater than all of us, greater than myself, my family, indeed greater than our entire generation. What could be of such value?
> 
> The freedom of man to live within civil, self-imposed limitations rather than under restrictions placed upon him by a ruler or a ruling class.
> 
> Imagine the daring, the bravery of a few men to declare they intended to create a new country, independent of the burden of their established Rulers!
> 
> Those men we call our forefathers were brilliant men. They could have maneuvered themselves into positions of influence within the structure of the times, but they did not. They struggled to free themselves from tyranny. They wrote the Declaration of Independence. And they backed up their words and ideals with metal and wood.
> 
> They knew the dangers of such dreams and actions. They knew it was a frightening and dangerous venture into the unknown when they dared reach beyond their grasp for a vision - for an ideal. But they dared to dedicate themselves to achieve Liberty and Freedom for their children, and their childrenâ€™s children, through the generations.
> 
> Imagine the dreams and yearnings of centuries finally being reduced to the written word. The Rights of "We the People!" instead of the "Powers of the Monarchy."
> 
> Our forefathers dared to create a new government - a new form of government. And they knew that any organization has, as its first and foremost goal, its continued existence. Second only to that it strives to increase its power. It plots, it devises, it maneuvers to achieve control over its environment - over its subjects.
> 
> Our Forefathers decided to make America different from any country, anywhere, at any time in the entire history of the entire world. This country, this new nation of immigrants, would be based upon the concept that people could rule themselves better than any single person or small group of persons could rule them.
> 
> Other countries have had outstanding documents with guarantees for its citizens - but the citizens have become enslaved. How, these great men pondered, can we ensure this new government will remain subject to the will of the People?
> 
> They wanted limits upon this new government. Therefore, our forefathers wrote limitations into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And one of those Rights was that metal and wood, as the final power of the people, would secure this country for the future generations.
> 
> Metal and wood were the means by which we won our freedom.
> 
> Metal and wood were the means by which we kept our freedom.
> 
> Metal and wood may be the means by which we regain our freedom.
> 
> Metal and wood are the final power of the people. Take away the metal and wood and the people become powerless - they can only beg, they supplicate for favors.
> 
> We are unique in our ability to rule ourselves but we are letting it slip away. Today we compromise. We try to appease manâ€™s insatiable appetite for power by throwing him bits of our freedoms. But the insatiable appetite for power can not be appeased. The freedoms we feed him only make us weaker and him stronger. We must conquer him and again ensure the "Blessings of Liberty" won for us by our forefathers.
> 
> We must be ready to use metal and wood again, for if we are ready, truly ready, we may be able to conquer the monster with words - for in its heart it is a coward. But if we continue to feed the monster our freedoms, we will become too weak to win, to weak even to fight, and we will become a conquered people. We will have sold ourselves and our future generations into servitude.
> 
> If words fail us, we will use metal and wood, we will regain what we have lost, we will achieve what we seek, we will guarantee the America of our forefathers for the future generations.
> 
> So you see, our guns are more than metal and wood. They are our heritage of freedom. They are the universally understood symbol that the government, no matter how big and strong it may be, answers to us! They are the tools we will use to prevent tyranny in the land of our forefathers and our children. So, ask me what my guns mean to me. Ask my children what our guns mean to them. Ask us. I dare you.


What a bunch of maudlin crap. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

"Necessary to the security of a free state"...you know, to fight off armed invaders. It doesn't say "necessary to the security of a free individual". Now, if all potential gun owners want to join their local militia as a prerequisite for gun ownership, that's fine by me.


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> LibertyShip, Whew!
> 
> I think, in summary form, you are stating what the US Attorney General, and most US Constitutional scholars, have concluded: that the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) was intended by the founders of the US to be a "doomsday" provision (quoting the AG) to provide one final, horrible, check against a government that has run amok; refused to obey the rule of law, the orders of the Courts, and the will of the people.
> 
> Correct?


That's a big component of it. I will add, in response to your and Jan's subsequent posts, that the mere fact that firearms are in the hands of "the people" is not in and of itself a check and safeguard. There must also be a requisite mindset and a certain degree of training. Historically in America these three things converged in the population. The right to the guns was guaranteed, the mindset was a cultural tradition, the training was provided by the government and seeded throughout the population by virture of the draft. Now, we seem to have held on to the guns, but the educational system is successfully undermining the mindset, and the all volunteer army has tempered the benefit of drawing conscripts from a random sampling of society, training them in military technology and tactics, then reinserting them throughout the population.

God help us all if it ever comes to the point that this "doomsday" option triggers. It is unlikely that there would be any winners. Its possibility, however, is part of the "checks and balances" which if left in place serve to guarantee that it will never happen. Sort of a "self defeating prophecy."

Regarding Jan's comments on Iraq and Europe, it's possible that while the firearms in civilian hands may have been present, what was missing was the mindset and training I mentioned. America is, actually, unique.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> LibertyShip, Whew!
> 
> I think, in summary form, you are stating what the US Attorney General, and most US Constitutional scholars, have concluded: that the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) was intended by the founders of the US to be a "doomsday" provision (quoting the AG) to provide one final, horrible, check against a government that has run amok; refused to obey the rule of law, the orders of the Courts, and the will of the people.
> 
> Correct?
> 
> 
> 
> That's a big component of it. I will add, in response to your and Jan's subsequent posts, that the mere fact that firearms are in the hands of "the people" is not in and of itself a check and safeguard. There must also be a requisite mindset and a certain degree of training. Historically in America these three things converged in the population. The right to the guns was guaranteed, the mindset was a cultural tradition, the training was provided by the government and seeded throughout the population by virture of the draft. Now, we seem to have held on to the guns, but the educational system is successfully undermining the mindset, and the all volunteer army has tempered the benefit of drawing conscripts from a random sampling of society, training them in military technology and tactics, then reinserting them throughout the population.
> 
> God help us all if it ever comes to the point that this "doomsday" option triggers. It is unlikely that there would be any winners. Its possibility, however, is part of the "checks and balances" which if left in place serve to guarantee that it will never happen. Sort of a "self defeating prophecy."
> 
> Regarding Jan's comments on Iraq and Europe, it's possible that while the firearms in civilian hands may have been present, what was missing was the mindset and training I mentioned. America is, actually, unique.
Click to expand...

no offence meant to the american spirit and mindset - but I think that the anti-government troops in iraq are about the best force that could be imagined for what they are doing: they are very well armed (not an engraved .45 around) all ak-47's and heavier stuff. they have in place higharchies, they have communications, they have community relationships going back generations.

by the way, one country that was really well prepared to defend itself from invasion was albania - almost every house has a concrete half sphere bunker, and they had village militias with anti-tank weaposn and heavy machine guns.


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> LibertyShip, Whew!
> 
> I think, in summary form, you are stating what the US Attorney General, and most US Constitutional scholars, have concluded: that the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) was intended by the founders of the US to be a "doomsday" provision (quoting the AG) to provide one final, horrible, check against a government that has run amok; refused to obey the rule of law, the orders of the Courts, and the will of the people.
> 
> Correct?
> 
> 
> 
> That's a big component of it. I will add, in response to your and Jan's subsequent posts, that the mere fact that firearms are in the hands of "the people" is not in and of itself a check and safeguard. There must also be a requisite mindset and a certain degree of training. Historically in America these three things converged in the population. The right to the guns was guaranteed, the mindset was a cultural tradition, the training was provided by the government and seeded throughout the population by virture of the draft. Now, we seem to have held on to the guns, but the educational system is successfully undermining the mindset, and the all volunteer army has tempered the benefit of drawing conscripts from a random sampling of society, training them in military technology and tactics, then reinserting them throughout the population.
> 
> God help us all if it ever comes to the point that this "doomsday" option triggers. It is unlikely that there would be any winners. Its possibility, however, is part of the "checks and balances" which if left in place serve to guarantee that it will never happen. Sort of a "self defeating prophecy."
> 
> Regarding Jan's comments on Iraq and Europe, it's possible that while the firearms in civilian hands may have been present, what was missing was the mindset and training I mentioned. America is, actually, unique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no offence meant to the american spirit and mindset - but I think that the anti-government troops in iraq are about the best force that could be imagined for what they are doing: they are very well armed (not an engraved .45 around) all ak-47's and heavier stuff. they have in place higharchies, they have communications, they have community relationships going back generations.
> 
> by the way, one country that was really well prepared to defend itself from invasion was albania - almost every house has a concrete half sphere bunker, and they had village militias with anti-tank weaposn and heavy machine guns.
Click to expand...

Agreed about the curent anti-gov forces in Iraq, but they are more professional and a very different crop of armed people than what Jan was referring to under Saddam before the invasion, I think. We made all the potential "good guys" turn in their guns which worked to our disadvantage in that then these "good guys" could be better intimidated by the armed bad guys. But this is a different topic from where this thread started.


----------



## globetrotter

[quoteAgreed about the curent anti-gov forces in Iraq, but they are more professional and a very different crop of armed people than what Jan was referring to under Saddam before the invasion, I think. We made all the potential "good guys" turn in their guns which worked to our disadvantage in that then these "good guys" could be better intimidated by the armed bad guys. But this is a different topic from where this thread started.
[/quote]

LS - this thread is so far off from where it started....


----------



## Briguy

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> "Metal and Wood"
> by Dennis Bateman
> 
> The following essay was originally published at www.TheFiringLine.com
> 
> It is a rare person who does not attach some sort of value or emotion to some physical object or to an event. A home becomes more than a building. A statue of the Virgin Mary, a crucifix, a flag or a song, or even a photograph can stir emotions greater than the value of the material item.
> 
> I have a piece of paper showing I served in the military until I was discharged honorably. But, oh, the memories that piece of paper conjures up. The friends, the fun times. The bad times. The times when we were bound closer to strangers than to our own families and, in frightening chaos, our lives hung by a thread.
> 
> Many of our friends died far from home. Ask us about the feeling of "American soil" upon returning to the land we loved. Ask those returning soldiers about America.
> 
> Remember the old, faintly humorous band of American Legionnaires, wearing out-dated military uniforms straining at the buttons. But, God how proudly they marched. Grinning, waving to friends and families, and always, always "The Flag!" Ask them if the flag is mere cloth, I dare you.
> 
> See the elderly lady sitting in a lawn chair watching the fourth of July parade. Three flags carefully folded some forty years ago into triangles now rest in her lap - one for each lost son. Ask her if those flags are mere cloth, I dare you.
> 
> Look at the old man quietly crying, leaning against the Iwo Jiima Memorial at Arlington Cemetery. As he turns to you, smiles with some embarrassment, and says in a choked whisper, "I was there." Ask him, "Is it just metal and clay?" Ask him. I dare you.
> 
> The Wall. My God, the Wall. See the young man lightly tracing the name of his father there inscribed. Ask him if its just rock. Ask him. I dare you.
> 
> My guns? Theyâ€™re of little real value compared to my family and my home. They are toys, or tools, or both. But what those guns represent to me is greater than all of us, greater than myself, my family, indeed greater than our entire generation. What could be of such value?
> 
> The freedom of man to live within civil, self-imposed limitations rather than under restrictions placed upon him by a ruler or a ruling class.
> 
> Imagine the daring, the bravery of a few men to declare they intended to create a new country, independent of the burden of their established Rulers!
> 
> Those men we call our forefathers were brilliant men. They could have maneuvered themselves into positions of influence within the structure of the times, but they did not. They struggled to free themselves from tyranny. They wrote the Declaration of Independence. And they backed up their words and ideals with metal and wood.
> 
> They knew the dangers of such dreams and actions. They knew it was a frightening and dangerous venture into the unknown when they dared reach beyond their grasp for a vision - for an ideal. But they dared to dedicate themselves to achieve Liberty and Freedom for their children, and their childrenâ€™s children, through the generations.
> 
> Imagine the dreams and yearnings of centuries finally being reduced to the written word. The Rights of "We the People!" instead of the "Powers of the Monarchy."
> 
> Our forefathers dared to create a new government - a new form of government. And they knew that any organization has, as its first and foremost goal, its continued existence. Second only to that it strives to increase its power. It plots, it devises, it maneuvers to achieve control over its environment - over its subjects.
> 
> Our Forefathers decided to make America different from any country, anywhere, at any time in the entire history of the entire world. This country, this new nation of immigrants, would be based upon the concept that people could rule themselves better than any single person or small group of persons could rule them.
> 
> Other countries have had outstanding documents with guarantees for its citizens - but the citizens have become enslaved. How, these great men pondered, can we ensure this new government will remain subject to the will of the People?
> 
> They wanted limits upon this new government. Therefore, our forefathers wrote limitations into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And one of those Rights was that metal and wood, as the final power of the people, would secure this country for the future generations.
> 
> Metal and wood were the means by which we won our freedom.
> 
> Metal and wood were the means by which we kept our freedom.
> 
> Metal and wood may be the means by which we regain our freedom.
> 
> Metal and wood are the final power of the people. Take away the metal and wood and the people become powerless - they can only beg, they supplicate for favors.
> 
> We are unique in our ability to rule ourselves but we are letting it slip away. Today we compromise. We try to appease manâ€™s insatiable appetite for power by throwing him bits of our freedoms. But the insatiable appetite for power can not be appeased. The freedoms we feed him only make us weaker and him stronger. We must conquer him and again ensure the "Blessings of Liberty" won for us by our forefathers.
> 
> We must be ready to use metal and wood again, for if we are ready, truly ready, we may be able to conquer the monster with words - for in its heart it is a coward. But if we continue to feed the monster our freedoms, we will become too weak to win, to weak even to fight, and we will become a conquered people. We will have sold ourselves and our future generations into servitude.
> 
> If words fail us, we will use metal and wood, we will regain what we have lost, we will achieve what we seek, we will guarantee the America of our forefathers for the future generations.
> 
> So you see, our guns are more than metal and wood. They are our heritage of freedom. They are the universally understood symbol that the government, no matter how big and strong it may be, answers to us! They are the tools we will use to prevent tyranny in the land of our forefathers and our children. So, ask me what my guns mean to me. Ask my children what our guns mean to them. Ask us. I dare you.
> 
> 
> 
> What a bunch of maudlin crap. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> "Necessary to the security of a free state"...you know, to fight off armed invaders. It doesn't say "necessary to the security of a free individual". Now, if all potential gun owners want to join their local militia as a prerequisite for gun ownership, that's fine by me.
Click to expand...

bosthist, in a memorandom written by the US Department of Justice, written for the Attorney General of the United States,(August 24, 2004) the DOJ concludes that "_The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias."_

The memorandom is a comprehensive review and analysis of the historical record in this regard. Set some time aside to read this, as it spans over 100 pages and 437 authoritative references.

Below is a link to the DOJ memorandum.


----------



## bosthist

The DOJ has their interpretation of the Second Amendment which is fine, but I believe they gloss over most of the contemporary debate surrounding its adoption--in other words "original intent" only applies when it is convenient for it to apply. The fear in the 1790s was that the federal government would take away arms, which would make the establishment of local militias impossible and pave the way for the creation of a standing army, which, to people in the 1790s was sure suicide for a republic. The DOJ's opinion simply ratifies established practice after the original intent of the amendment has been lost. I find it ironic that Liberty Ship laments the absence of a draft to teach folks how to use guns--what does a draft produce? Why, a standing a army of course.

In any case, I don't care if people own guns. My concerns, like those of Globetrotter are (a) that people don't have enough training in both operation and safekeeping of weapons and (b) most people have more weapon than they need. If you feel you need one for self defense, as remote as the actual need to use it is, go ahead and carry one. But posting some nonsense about how it is patriotic to own a gun for the far more remote possibility that you will need to take up arms against your own government? Spare me.

And that little essay is still a maudlin piece of crap.


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> The DOJ has their interpretation of the Second Amendment which is fine, but I believe they gloss over most of the contemporary debate surrounding its adoption--in other words "original intent" only applies when it is convenient for it to apply. The fear in the 1790s was that the federal government would take away arms, which would make the establishment of local militias impossible and pave the way for the creation of a standing army, which, to people in the 1790s was sure suicide for a republic. The DOJ's opinion simply ratifies established practice after the original intent of the amendment has been lost. I find it ironic that Liberty Ship laments the absence of a draft to teach folks how to use guns--what does a draft produce? Why, a standing a army of course.
> 
> In any case, I don't care if people own guns. My concerns, like those of Globetrotter are (a) that people don't have enough training in both operation and safekeeping of weapons and (b) most people have more weapon than they need. If you feel you need one for self defense, as remote as the actual need to use it is, go ahead and carry one. But posting some nonsense about how it is patriotic to own a gun for the far more remote possibility that you will need to take up arms against your own government? Spare me.
> 
> And that little essay is still a maudlin piece of crap.


I agree that it's maudlin; I didn't post it as an example of literary excellence. My first instinct on reading it several years ago was to edit it. I posted it to support my assertion that we are talking about more here than simply the practical aspects of the issue. Guns, like swords, are symbolic. That's all I was trying to demonstrate.

The founding fathers feared a standing army, but viewed it as a necessary evil to protect a free state, thus they protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a check and balance against that evil.

By the way, ever heard of the Battle of Athens (Tennessee)?

https://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> The DOJ has their interpretation of the Second Amendment which is fine, but I believe they gloss over most of the contemporary debate surrounding its adoption--in other words "original intent" only applies when it is convenient for it to apply. The fear in the 1790s was that the federal government would take away arms, which would make the establishment of local militias impossible and pave the way for the creation of a standing army, which, to people in the 1790s was sure suicide for a republic. The DOJ's opinion simply ratifies established practice after the original intent of the amendment has been lost. I find it ironic that Liberty Ship laments the absence of a draft to teach folks how to use guns--what does a draft produce? Why, a standing a army of course.
> 
> In any case, I don't care if people own guns. My concerns, like those of Globetrotter are (a) that people don't have enough training in both operation and safekeeping of weapons and (b) most people have more weapon than they need. If you feel you need one for self defense, as remote as the actual need to use it is, go ahead and carry one. But posting some nonsense about how it is patriotic to own a gun for the far more remote possibility that you will need to take up arms against your own government? Spare me.
> 
> And that little essay is still a maudlin piece of crap.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it's maudlin; I didn't post it as an example of literary excellence. My first instinct on reading it several years ago was to edit it. I posted it to support my assertion that we are talking about more here than simply the practical aspects of the issue. Guns, like swords, are symbolic. That's all I was trying to demonstrate.
> 
> The founding fathers feared a standing army, but viewed it as a necessary evil to protect a free state, thus they protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a check and balance against that evil.
> 
> By the way, ever heard of the Battle of Athens (Tennessee)?
> 
> https://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm
Click to expand...

1. not to go back to begining, but I personally find something distrurbing about using the gun, or the sword as a positive symbol

2. this is an intersting story. these guys were vets. as the participation in teh military becomes a smaller part of the US population, the success of this type of thing is less likely.


----------



## bosthist

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> The DOJ has their interpretation of the Second Amendment which is fine, but I believe they gloss over most of the contemporary debate surrounding its adoption--in other words "original intent" only applies when it is convenient for it to apply. The fear in the 1790s was that the federal government would take away arms, which would make the establishment of local militias impossible and pave the way for the creation of a standing army, which, to people in the 1790s was sure suicide for a republic. The DOJ's opinion simply ratifies established practice after the original intent of the amendment has been lost. I find it ironic that Liberty Ship laments the absence of a draft to teach folks how to use guns--what does a draft produce? Why, a standing a army of course.
> 
> In any case, I don't care if people own guns. My concerns, like those of Globetrotter are (a) that people don't have enough training in both operation and safekeeping of weapons and (b) most people have more weapon than they need. If you feel you need one for self defense, as remote as the actual need to use it is, go ahead and carry one. But posting some nonsense about how it is patriotic to own a gun for the far more remote possibility that you will need to take up arms against your own government? Spare me.
> 
> And that little essay is still a maudlin piece of crap.
> 
> 
> 
> The founding fathers feared a standing army, but viewed it as a necessary evil to protect a free state, thus they protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a check and balance against that evil.
Click to expand...

No. The founding fathers did not view a standing army as a necessary evil to protect a free state. Most Americans supported local and state militias, organized without the interference of the federal government. Cincinnatus the Roman consul and dictator who lay down his arms after subduing an attack on Rome to return to his farm, was seen as the ideal.

As one Anti-Federalist critic (The Federal Farmer) wrote about a state militia, "[it] places the sword in the hands of the solid interest of the community, and not in the hands of men destitute of property, of principle, or of attachment to the society and government." Elbridge Gerry, speaking in Congress in 1789 on the Second Amendment asked, "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." I can provide citations to a number of articles exploring the history of the Second Amendment, both pro and con, for anyone who is interested. The preceding quotes came from Saul Cornell's "Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828.

As to the Battle of Athens, local factions battling over political control is a far cry from taking up arms against an abusive federal government. I don't see it as a justification for having or not having guns and I'm not really certain how it fits into this discussion. We can look at many more examples of guns being used to negative extralegal effect at the local level, but what would that prove?


----------



## bosthist

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 1. not to go back to beginning, but I personally find something disturbing about using the gun, or the sword as a positive symbol


I hereby propose a Constitutional amendment to ban the burning of guns.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> The DOJ has their interpretation of the Second Amendment which is fine, but I believe they gloss over most of the contemporary debate surrounding its adoption--in other words "original intent" only applies when it is convenient for it to apply. The fear in the 1790s was that the federal government would take away arms, which would make the establishment of local militias impossible and pave the way for the creation of a standing army, which, to people in the 1790s was sure suicide for a republic. The DOJ's opinion simply ratifies established practice after the original intent of the amendment has been lost. I find it ironic that Liberty Ship laments the absence of a draft to teach folks how to use guns--what does a draft produce? Why, a standing a army of course.
> 
> In any case, I don't care if people own guns. My concerns, like those of Globetrotter are (a) that people don't have enough training in both operation and safekeeping of weapons and (b) most people have more weapon than they need. If you feel you need one for self defense, as remote as the actual need to use it is, go ahead and carry one. But posting some nonsense about how it is patriotic to own a gun for the far more remote possibility that you will need to take up arms against your own government? Spare me.
> 
> And that little essay is still a maudlin piece of crap.
> 
> 
> 
> The founding fathers feared a standing army, but viewed it as a necessary evil to protect a free state, thus they protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a check and balance against that evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The founding fathers did not view a standing army as a necessary evil to protect a free state. Most Americans supported local and state militias, organized without the interference of the federal government. Cincinnatus the Roman consul and dictator who lay down his arms after subduing an attack on Rome to return to his farm, was seen as the ideal.
> 
> As one Anti-Federalist critic (The Federal Farmer) wrote about a state militia, "[it] places the sword in the hands of the solid interest of the community, and not in the hands of men destitute of property, of principle, or of attachment to the society and government." Elbridge Gerry, speaking in Congress in 1789 on the Second Amendment asked, "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." I can provide citations to a number of articles exploring the history of the Second Amendment, both pro and con, for anyone who is interested. The preceding quotes came from Saul Cornell's "Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828.
> 
> As to the Battle of Athens, local factions battling over political control is a far cry from taking up arms against an abusive federal government. I don't see it as a justification for having or not having guns and I'm not really certain how it fits into this discussion. We can look at many more examples of guns being used to negative extralegal effect at the local level, but what would that prove?
Click to expand...

BH - I know nothing about the intention of the framers, and I am not a trained historian, but I have always understood that when they refer to a "standing army" at the time they are talking about an army of mercenaries, and a militia refers to a citizens army.

it was always my understanding that the idea was that all citizens should have the right and responsiblity to be part of the security establishment - although what was needed at the time of course was totally different from what is needed today. a minuteman can't man a tank or a plane or a submarine.


----------



## bosthist

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> BH - I know nothing about the intention of the framers, and I am not a trained historian, but I have always understood that when they refer to a "standing army" at the time they are talking about an army of mercenaries, and a militia refers to a citizens army.
> 
> it was always my understanding that the idea was that all citizens should have the right and responsiblity to be part of the security establishment - although what was needed at the time of course was totally different from what is needed today. a minuteman can't man a tank or a plane or a submarine.


Globetrotter:

I forgot to finish off Gerry's quote. He went on to say, "Whenever government mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." So in this case what is being talked about is (a) who will control the armed forces, not necessarily the composition. Presumably being a federal soldier would mean shedding one's allegiance to his state. The desire of states to control their own military (and to set their own methods of collecting the taxes assigned to each state by the federal government, among other issues) reflects the uneasy balance which marked the period between the ratification of the Constitution and the adoption of the Bill of Rights, not that these issues disappeared with the adoption of the first ten amendments.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> BH - I know nothing about the intention of the framers, and I am not a trained historian, but I have always understood that when they refer to a "standing army" at the time they are talking about an army of mercenaries, and a militia refers to a citizens army.
> 
> it was always my understanding that the idea was that all citizens should have the right and responsiblity to be part of the security establishment - although what was needed at the time of course was totally different from what is needed today. a minuteman can't man a tank or a plane or a submarine.
> 
> 
> 
> Globetrotter:
> 
> I forgot to finish off Gerry's quote. He went on to say, "Whenever government mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." So in this case what is being talked about is (a) who will control the armed forces, not necessarily the composition. Presumably being a federal soldier would mean shedding one's allegiance to his state. The desire of states to control their own military (and to set their own methods of collecting the taxes assigned to each state by the federal government, among other issues) reflects the uneasy balance which marked the period between the ratification of the Constitution and the adoption of the Bill of Rights, not that these issues disappeared with the adoption of the first ten amendments.
Click to expand...



thanks - I always forget about the state/federal issue in america, and how important it was historically.


----------



## johnapril

> quote:_Originally posted by skalogre_
> 
> Omg. I avoided this thread for a while. Globetrotter, if it helps, I *think* I know where you are coming from. I also have difficulty seeing the whole "guns for self-defense" argument as usually portrayed. probably a cultural thing in the end, though.
> 
> I think we need a new equivalent of the "black suit" thread to calm things down a bit


Fewer black suits and more black belts.


----------



## dueceman455

Hello everyone, I thought I would give my meager opinion on this topic again. My first handgun of which I carried for self defense was the standard Colt 1911A1. I never carried it condition three, or cocked and locked. While I was properly versed in this wonderful pistol's indiocracies, and mannerisms, I never felt comfortable carrying it loaded, hammer back, safety on. Since my first experience with handguns was with revolvers, I went back to the revolver for personal protection. I carried a Colt Python for years, until repeated mechanical problems forced me to sell it. Nowadays, I usually carry two revolvers when I have a need to. Either a Colt Detective Special or a Lew Horton special edition Model 24 Smith and Wesson .44 special. Hence it is not a magnum. It is the big brother's little brother.
I never felt insecure with a revolver. Nor with a side by side shotgun.
Thanks for letting me throw my two cents in,
Dueceman.

Life is excellent so long as you have a fine cigar, and an equally nice Cadillac.


----------



## whnay.

From the leading ammunition maker in the United States CorBon, whose rounds have been consistently ranked tops in stopping power.



> quote:*CorBon's self defense ammunition has an unexcelled reputation for stopping power. Why? *
> A. Stopping Power is more complicated than it sounds. An analysis of police shootings, and gelatin testing gives a percentage number relating to the number of times that only one shot was needed to stop an aggressor. We believe in this concept whole heatedly because actual results have verified it continuously year after year. Our ammunition is a top rated stopper in almost all the common self defense cartridges from 380 to 45 ACP. Stopping power is a combination of high velocity, meaning higher energy in each weight range, combined with a hollowpoint bullet that will expand rapidly, dumping all the available energy into the target. The faster this available energy is transferred into the target, the higher the stopping percentage.


___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## whnay.

I just wanted to say that in honor of this thread I purchased a new sig sauer 229 this past weekend, I'll let you fellas know how it comparies to my glock 18 and 23.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## dueceman455

Before everyone blows a top, pardon my mispelled words. My ancient Webster's dictionary circa 1963 was not at my fingertip. Thanks again,
Dueceman

Life is excellent so long as you have a fine cigar, and an equally nice Cadillac.


----------



## Kav

" I support the right to bear arms---and the right not to bear arms"- Edward Abbey.As a treehugger I also suport the right to arm bears. As a poster I suggest we stop bearing arms and use arms to drink beers. This thread is well, treadbare. A bad sign when theadcounts exceed Italian mill's best efforts.


----------



## Mr. Di Liberti

Agreed, every gentleman should have a pistol or revolver. If a mans life is not worth his defending, what is it worth?

When it comes down to firearms for carry and defence, classy has nothing to do with the choice. I prefer .44, .45 or .50 caliber handguns.

Typical encounter range is between 2 and 7 meters, maximum stopping power/distructive force comes from heavy projectiles which expend most of their energy upon impact. My choice for this is the .45 acp at around 950fps.

Springfield 1911 A1 is my first choice for an autoloader, hands down My first choice for a "stopping Power" hand gun is the S&W M 29.

Anthony

Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage ~ Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## Briguy

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaa.....stopping power....energy dump.....must get away.....&lt;runs out of the room screaming&gt;


----------



## DukeGrad

whnay!

I have the Sig, in a 40 SW.
This is perfect for me.
It holsters well also.
I like this over my Glock, Para Ord, and Beretta
It is a great weapon!

You will enjoy.
Nice day my friends

Jimmy


----------



## Daywalker

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> I just wanted to say that in honor of this thread I purchased a new sig sauer 229 this past weekend, I'll let you fellas know how it comparies to my glock 18 and 23.


That 229 is one fine weapon in .40 S&W. Did you get the 12-round mags? I had one and traded it for the P220 in .45ACP only because I had several other 40's. You cannot go wrong with the SIGs.


----------



## Kav

Holy Howitzer Batman! It's the evil Hatcher and his formulae tested on the greatgrandparents of those unfortunate animals in Montana found vivissected by the UFOs from that other post. For stopping chupacabras, Pagan Biker gangs, PCP frenzied, blue haired matrons on motorised chairs and Rodney King becoming a Hollywood Square celebrity next to Za Za use what you can.My 82 year old mother can just handle her .32 Magnum. I can shoot just about anything, but my old 6" model 10 5 screw with long action and plain vanilla 200 grain super police x'ed with a knife and rubbed in garlic will make McGivern proud if men in black break in at 2 A.M. and they don't punch through drywall either. They have to get past Piewacket my attack cat first. Anyone heard about the siamese who faced a serial rapist at the top of his mistresse's staircase? Police followed the HEAVY bloodtrail and caught the scum. Another cat did same to a burglar breaking into a window. That kitty was blind from birth.Don't pass on Himalayans with flat faces either. The dental imprint isn't Camp Perry, but they make up for it in manueverability and stealth with that long hair. For the Magnum crowd there are the true exotics; lions and tigers and bears oh my!


----------



## whnay.

> quote:
> That 229 is one fine weapon in .40 S&W. Did you get the 12-round mags? I had one and traded it for the P220 in .45ACP only because I had several other 40's. You cannot go wrong with the SIGs.


Firing this weekend for the first time.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## Mr. Di Liberti

That's awesome Kav!and a point well made.

Yet, when getting down to brass tack's of a gent defending himself and those he cares for, is it really a joking matter?

Having been around the globe, walked the worst streets on this planet and been taken hostage, I for one do not take this as a joking matter.

Any man who feels his life is not worth defending, has lost nothing should it be taken.

Anthony

Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage ~ Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## Briguy

Ah, Kav, we have a similar setup at my house. First, the burglar must sneak past our two Greyhounds. One of which I know for a fact will lick him to death, and the other will corner him and demand treats. Anyone not yielding to their demands for treats is in very, very big trouble. 

Next, they must get past our Watch Bird, a Sun Conure whose screech of alarm has, in fact, awoken the dead on at least one, documented occasion. 

Any burglar at this point will have likely abandoned all hope of a successful burglary. Those still in the game, however, will then be faced with the choice of heading either upstairs or downstairs. Downstairs, to the basement, will lead them into a veritable dungeon, a dank, dark place stuffed with enough junk to supply a dozen garage sales. Should they make this choice, I will most certainly do nothing, in the hope that they will haul away some of the junk without asking to be paid for their efforts. 

Should they head upstairs, they will have to choose either our clothing room, filled with my collection of suits, jackets and shoes (and a few of my wifeâ€™s things stuffed on the odd shelf), or our bedroom. Now, if they appear to be a perfect 42-long, I will shoot them dead if they take even a single step toward the clothing room. Any man molesting my clothing shall pay a dear price indeed!

Any movement into the bedroom will be soundly thwarted by a locked bedroom door, and if he breeches the door, the sight if me standing there in my skivvies, in a perfect Chapman stance, pointing my custom engraved 1911 at him, will likely send him racing out of the house, spasming with uncontrollable laughter.


----------



## Briguy

> quote:_Originally posted by Mr. Di Liberti_
> 
> Having been around the globe, walked the worst streets on this planet and been taken hostage, I for one do not take this as a joking matter.


As there are a numnber of folks here with a wide range of military and law enforcement backgrounds, across many countries, I'm sure we would be interested in hearing about your cv in this regard.


----------



## mokita

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> Ok, law abiding, armed citizens, by their very existence, are a viable threat against the government descending into tyranny. They will also get smashed to bits if they ever try to confront a trained army head-to-head.


As has been the case in Iraq?



> quote:Realistically, if the very worst happens, many, if not most, of the guns will be confiscated by government troops.


So, you think that your children and mine will collect our guns from us? Really? Are your children more obedient to the government than to the citizens?


> quote:
> Not all, though, and itâ€™s this leakage that will find its way to the resistance forces who will tie the government down in a guerilla war for decades. In this type of conflict, pistols are worthless.


Are you familiar with the Liberator and its intended use?

How about the Deer Gun?

Both were intended for the same purpose. Read about it here:

==
This little gun was produced during WW II and dropped to the resistance groups behind enemy lines. It was a cheap stamped single shot .45 complete with smooth bore and breech action. The idea was that the enemy would have no use for it if and when they found it, but the partisians would be able to take out an enemy soldier and then take his more effective weapons. It was produced by the Guide Lamp division of GM - the same division that later made turn signal lamp housings and the like. Some three million were made at a rate of 1 ever 5 seconds, making it the only gun in history that could be made faster than it could be loaded.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> Ok, law abiding, armed citizens, by their very existence, are a viable threat against the government descending into tyranny. They will also get smashed to bits if they ever try to confront a trained army head-to-head.
> 
> 
> 
> As has been the case in Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:Realistically, if the very worst happens, many, if not most, of the guns will be confiscated by government troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you think that your children and mine will collect our guns from us? Really? Are your children more obedient to the government than to the citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> quote:
> Not all, though, and itâ€™s this leakage that will find its way to the resistance forces who will tie the government down in a guerilla war for decades. In this type of conflict, pistols are worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you familiar with the Liberator and its intended use?
> 
> How about the Deer Gun?
> 
> Both were intended for the same purpose. Read about it here:
> 
> ==
> This little gun was produced during WW II and dropped to the resistance groups behind enemy lines. It was a cheap stamped single shot .45 complete with smooth bore and breech action. The idea was that the enemy would have no use for it if and when they found it, but the partisians would be able to take out an enemy soldier and then take his more effective weapons. It was produced by the Guide Lamp division of GM - the same division that later made turn signal lamp housings and the like. Some three million were made at a rate of 1 ever 5 seconds, making it the only gun in history that could be made faster than it could be loaded.
Click to expand...

if I remember correctly, the Libererator didn't really have much of an impact during the war, and then caused a great deal of a problem after the war being used by criminals, but I may be wrong about that.

as I have stated several times before on this thread, I believe that there is a great difference between what is happening in iraq and what could happen in the states. in iraq you have well trained people, very well armed, who have teams that have worked together and often extended family groups that have long term relationships.

in the states that would be very hard to put together. pistoles don't fight tanks, and neither do individuals.


----------



## Briguy

> quote:_Originally posted by mokita_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> Ok, law abiding, armed citizens, by their very existence, are a viable threat against the government descending into tyranny. They will also get smashed to bits if they ever try to confront a trained army head-to-head.
> 
> 
> 
> As has been the case in Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:Realistically, if the very worst happens, many, if not most, of the guns will be confiscated by government troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you think that your children and mine will collect our guns from us? Really? Are your children more obedient to the government than to the citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> quote:
> Not all, though, and itâ€™s this leakage that will find its way to the resistance forces who will tie the government down in a guerilla war for decades. In this type of conflict, pistols are worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you familiar with the Liberator and its intended use?
> 
> How about the Deer Gun?
> 
> Both were intended for the same purpose. Read about it here:
> 
> ==
Click to expand...

Firstly, the population at large in Iraq did not possess firearms unless they were loyal to Saddam. Kurds, other ethnic populations, etc were not allowed arms. Secondly, the majority of the population of Iraq supports Iraqi self determination. It is the extremists, mostly foreign (e.g. non-Iraqi) who make up the terrorists cells doing the fighting. And, if you notice, they are fighting a guerilla war, not a direct war with military forces. This is the style of warfare that works well with small arms and hit-and-run tactics. Thirdly, we are beating the snot out of the resistance in Iraq. They are suffering dozens of kills for every coalition or Iraqi soldier killed. Remember, in the last major guerilla war we fought, in Vietnam, we lost 56,000 troops over ten years. North Vietnam lost 3 million. They continued fighting because 1) they were fighting for their sovereignty and 2) they believed the peace movement in the US would cause us to pull out eventually. And they were right. Guerilla fighters suffer staggering casualties when confronting a military force head on.

As to your second point, if the government passed a law or laws banning the private possession of arms, yes, the troops and cops would comply with lawful orders issued to them by their superiors to confiscate weapons. Did British police refuse to enforce the handgun ban of 1997? Nope. Did the Australian authorities refuse to confiscate arms banned in their gun control laws passed a few years ago? Nope. Did either of these countries experience shoot outs with civilians refusing to turn-in their guns. Nope. How about Washington DC police, any of them refuse to enforce the district's tough gun laws? NYPD and the Sullivan law? No and no.

Yes, I'm aware of the Liberator and the Deer gun. I'm also aware that no documented uses of the Liberator exist, at least to my knowledge. If you are aware of any, please send me the citation, as I am interested in this topic.

A pistol has limited use in battle, even guerilla war. It is a short range, woefully underpowered weapon. If given the task of fighting under the circumstances envisioned in this discussion, and being given choice between a modern pistol or a WW1 bolt action, I will take the bolt action every time.

Lastly, we could not win a guerilla war by ourselves. If this doomsday situation ever happened, the guerillas would be eventually killed or captured unless support was received from other countries. The supply of existing guns in the US would give a guerilla movement its start, but it would need resupply, and more sophisticated weapons, communications gear, intelligence gathering capabilities, etc, if it were to hope to succeed against a modern army.


----------



## FlatSix

Ah, the Liberator!

I'll have to open up my Jane's or Ezell to check, but if I recall correctly, the Globe Trotter is half right. 

There were plans made to drop Liberators en masse in occupied France, but de Gaulle and his crew talked the US out of doing it - their reasoning being that the population would be more difficult to subdue afterwards. Not all the French were Gaullists - some preferred the Vichy state and others had their own agenda. It was a staggeringly cold-blooded piece of reasoning. 

So the Liberators were never used.


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


"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


----------



## Kav

( Apologies to better students of the Bible) "Do your praying quietly and in private." and "Make a joyfull noise." A handgun for personal defence should be discrete, unseen and unmentioned less it's presence be compromised to a potential assailant's foreknowledge. A 97 Winchester riot shotgun going off next to the idiot with the coffeegrinder triggered mini 14 spraying a used washingmachine ( Ojai public shooting range before it was closed for the mess, danger and alcohol)benefits by male posturing, bonding of flesh and soul with steel and walnut and the laid back dog eared hammer leaving no doubt as to readiness


----------



## mokita

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> Ah, the Liberator!
> 
> I'll have to open up my Jane's or Ezell to check, but if I recall correctly, the Globe Trotter is half right.
> 
> There were plans made to drop Liberators en masse in occupied France, but de Gaulle and his crew talked the US out of doing it - their reasoning being that the population would be more difficult to subdue afterwards. Not all the French were Gaullists - some preferred the Vichy state and others had their own agenda. It was a staggeringly cold-blooded piece of reasoning.
> 
> So the Liberators were never used.


The link I provided included this:

There is little agreement between Historians as to the origins and use of the Liberator Pistol. While it appears in the classified OSS weapons catalog, there is little proof that the pistols were ever dropped into occupied Europe in large quantities although they were certainly in use in occupied France. There is more evidence that the Liberator played a significant role in the hands of Philippine guerillas against the Japanese.

Wikipedia's version:

Only the Chinese and resistance forces in the Philippines received the liberator in any significant quantity.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> Ah, the Liberator!
> 
> I'll have to open up my Jane's or Ezell to check, but if I recall correctly, the Globe Trotter is half right.
> 
> There were plans made to drop Liberators en masse in occupied France, but de Gaulle and his crew talked the US out of doing it - their reasoning being that the population would be more difficult to subdue afterwards. Not all the French were Gaullists - some preferred the Vichy state and others had their own agenda. It was a staggeringly cold-blooded piece of reasoning.
> 
> So the Liberators were never used.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> "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


thanks - I think that what I remembered was the argument that they would fall into the hands of criminals after the war.


----------



## mokita

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> Firstly, the population at large in Iraq did not possess firearms unless they were loyal to Saddam.


The comment I responded to was this:



> quote:Ok, law abiding, armed citizens, by their very existence, are a viable threat against the government descending into tyranny. They will also get smashed to bits if they ever try to confront a trained army head-to-head.


You apparently did not understand my perspective that a lightly armed group of insurgents can (as we see on the evening news) resist "a trained army head-to-head." Do you disagree? You do understand that the US has lost more troops after the taking of Iraq than during the attack, don't you?



> quote:And, if you notice, they are fighting a guerilla war, not a direct war with military forces.


I don't think that was ruled out in the prior comments. We all know how they are fighting.



> quote:This is the style of warfare that works well with small arms and hit-and-run tactics.


Right!



> quote: Thirdly, we are beating the snot out of the resistance in Iraq. They are suffering dozens of kills for every coalition or Iraqi soldier killed.


In Korea, the US killed over a million enemy soldiers. Did we win that one? In Vietnam, the results were at least the same, and possibly more. We lost that one. The arithmetic in war is not the same as it is in the supermarket.


> quote:
> Remember, in the last major guerilla war we fought, in Vietnam, we lost 56,000 troops over ten years. North Vietnam lost 3 million.


Your number is subject to a lot of disagreement.

The irony of this whole affair is that on April 3rd, 1995, on the 20th anniversary of the end of the Second Indochina War, the North Vietnamese Communists finally admited their true casualties. While the U.S. Command had officially stated that we killed about 750,000 NVA and VC, the Communists declared, in an official press release to Agence France, that we had actually killed 1.1 million NVA soldiers.



> quote:As to your second point, if the government passed a law or laws banning the private possession of arms, yes, the troops and cops would comply with lawful orders issued to them by their superiors to confiscate weapons. Did British police refuse to enforce the handgun ban of 1997? Nope. Did the Australian authorities refuse to confiscate arms banned in their gun control laws passed a few years ago? Nope.


Some context is needed. The comment that I responded to was this:
Realistically, if the very worst happens, many, if not most, of the guns will be confiscated by government troops.

I assume that "the very worst" is something along the lines of Hitler's rule or Stalin's treatment of his people. Maybe you are right, but I am thinking in terms of the state at war against its people.



> quote:Yes, I'm aware of the Liberator and the Deer gun. I'm also aware that no documented uses of the Liberator exist, at least to my knowledge. If you are aware of any, please send me the citation, as I am interested in this topic.


My information pertains to the manufacture and distribution of the guns, not their use. I am very surprised to learn (if this is really a fact) that no person was shot with either gun, especially given the distribution of the Liberator in China and the Philippines. What is your source of information?

If the Liberator was never used, why did the US bother with the Deer Gun?

Nice pic of a Liberator:



> quote:
> A pistol has limited use in battle, even guerilla war. It is a short range, woefully underpowered weapon.


I fail to appreciate your point. Are you of the impression that I suggested that the Liberator was a combat weapon? Are you familiar with its reason for production???



> quote:Lastly, we could not win a guerilla war by ourselves.


Against whom?


----------



## Briguy

mokita, I obviously misinterpreted much of you were saying. It looks like we agree on the ability of lightly armed insurgents being an effective force in a guerilla war.

With regard to Korea and Vietnam, I believe I heard the 3 million number mentioned in a recent 60 minutes piece on the state of Vietnam today. Perhaps that included civilians, or maybe is just not a good number. 

I would argue that we won in Korea, preventing the commies from taking over the south, and tying down both Chinese and Russian resources for three years. Vietnam, well, I go back and forth on that one. We were not militarily defeated, but this the most extensively we have ever let politicians run a war, and the nonsensical strategies we employed show their lack of ability in this regard, creating (or adding to?) the massive distrust in government we still have today. We did, once again, cause the expenditure of massive economic and human resource by the communists, Vietnamese and Russian, that they could ill afford. Did our fighting in Vietnam ultimately prevent other, more serious wars from breaking out? Perhaps, but I don't think we will ever really know the answer to that question.

Regarding the confiscation of private guns, I was thinking, like you, about the government turning against its own people a la Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc, and this leading to a protracted insurrection.

My Liberator info comes from two iffy sources. One, a gun magazine article a few years ago (don't recall the mag) and a more recent History channel special on the French resistance that included a brief segment on the piece. It did not mention anything about the Philippines, though. I cannot speak to its use there, but I bet it would be a great story. 

I really misunderstood your intent as to the role of a pistol in combat. I though you meant that it was a viable weapon. 

The guerrilla war I was envisioning was US rebels against a Hitler/Stalin type of government.

Sorry for the massive misinterpretation.


----------



## tiger02

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> mokita, I obviously misinterpreted much of you were saying. It looks like we agree on the ability of lightly armed insurgents being an effective force in a guerilla war.


Lightly armed? Are you guys nuts? Most of the stuff they're using is illegal in the States. Lacking tanks is not the same as being lightly armed.

Tom


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> mokita, I obviously misinterpreted much of you were saying. It looks like we agree on the ability of lightly armed insurgents being an effective force in a guerilla war.
> 
> With regard to Korea and Vietnam, I believe I heard the 3 million number mentioned in a recent 60 minutes piece on the state of Vietnam today. Perhaps that included civilians, or maybe is just not a good number.
> 
> I would argue that we won in Korea, preventing the commies from taking over the south, and tying down both Chinese and Russian resources for three years. Vietnam, well, I go back and forth on that one. We were not militarily defeated, but this the most extensively we have ever let politicians run a war, and the nonsensical strategies we employed show their lack of ability in this regard, creating (or adding to?) the massive distrust in government we still have today. We did, once again, cause the expenditure of massive economic and human resource by the communists, Vietnamese and Russian, that they could ill afford. Did our fighting in Vietnam ultimately prevent other, more serious wars from breaking out? Perhaps, but I don't think we will ever really know the answer to that question.
> 
> Regarding the confiscation of private guns, I was thinking, like you, about the government turning against its own people a la Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc, and this leading to a protracted insurrection.
> 
> My Liberator info comes from two iffy sources. One, a gun magazine article a few years ago (don't recall the mag) and a more recent History channel special on the French resistance that included a brief segment on the piece. It did not mention anything about the Philippines, though. I cannot speak to its use there, but I bet it would be a great story.
> 
> I really misunderstood your intent as to the role of a pistol in combat. I though you meant that it was a viable weapon.
> 
> The guerrilla war I was envisioning was US rebels against a Hitler/Stalin type of government.
> 
> Sorry for the massive misinterpretation.


I'll add this thought about the Liberator. Anyone shot with (or even threatened by) a Liberator would probably be armed with some kind of military weapon. Thus, there would have beeen a conversion/multiplier factor. One Liberator could have put a military semi-auto pistol or a bolt action rifle in the hands whoever possessed it. At that point, the issue of whether or not the freedom fighter was "checked out" on the particular weapon would become a factor. That's where a gun culture like the United States has an advantage. When such conversions took place in the Warsaw ghetto, they had to start training on the spot.

The movie Schindler's List left out a very important event that was covered in the book. I transcribed it once and will paste it here:

Here are the germane passages from the book, Schindlerâ€™s List by Thomas Keneally:

Chapter 35

â€œDuring the winter, Oskar [Schindler] built up an independent arsenal. Again there were legends: Some say that the weapons were bought at the end of winter from the Czech underground. But Oskar had been an obvious National Socialist in 1938 and 1938 and may have been wary of dealing with the Czechs. Most of the weapons, in any case, came from a flawless source, from Oberstrumbannfuhrer Rasch, SS and police chief of Moravia. The small cache included carbines and automatic weapons, some pistols, some hand grenades. Oskar would later describe the transaction offhandedly. He acquired the arms, he would say, â€˜under the pretense of protecting my factory, for the price of the gift of a brilliant ring to his [Rachâ€™s] wife.â€™

â€œOnce Oskar had the weapons, he appointed Uri Bejski, brother of the rubber stamp maker, keeper of the arsenalâ€¦

â€œHaving selected the small body of prisoners for training, Uri took one at a time into Salpeterâ€™s storehouse to teach them the mechanisms of the Gewehr 41 Wâ€™s. Three commando squads of five men each had been formed. Some of Bejskiâ€™s trainees were boys like Lutek Feigenbaum. Others were Polish vetrans such as Pffefferberg and those other prisoners whom the Schindler prisoners called the â€˜Budzyn people.â€™

â€œThe Budzyn people were Jewish officers and men of the Polish Army. They had lived through the liquidation of the Budzyn labor campâ€¦A number of them took private lessons on Uri Bejskiâ€™s automatics, for in the Polish Army of the Thirties they had never held such sophisticated weapons.

Chapter 38

â€œIn the hours following Oskarâ€™s speech [Note: This is partially recreated in the farewell speech at the factory in the movie.] the SS garrison began to desert. Inside the factory, the commandos selected from the Budzyn people and from other elements of the prison population had already been issued the weapons that Oskar had provided. It was hoped to disarm the SS rather than wage a ritual battle with them. It would not be wise, as Oskar had explained, to attract any retreating and embittered units to the gate. But unless something as outlandish as a treaty was arrived at, the towers would ultimately have to be stormed with grenades.

â€œThe truth, however, was that the commandos had only to formalize the disarming described in Oskarâ€™s speech. The guards at te main gate gave up their weapons almost gratefully.â€


----------



## Briguy

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> mokita, I obviously misinterpreted much of you were saying. It looks like we agree on the ability of lightly armed insurgents being an effective force in a guerilla war.
> 
> 
> 
> Lightly armed? Are you guys nuts? Most of the stuff they're using is illegal in the States. Lacking tanks is not the same as being lightly armed.
> 
> Tom
Click to expand...

As military force goes, rifles, RPGs, some morters, yes, lightly armed. This would definately be heavily armed if you were defending your home against burglers, though.


----------



## tiger02

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> As military force goes, rifles, RPGs, some morters, yes, lightly armed. This would definately be heavily armed if you were defending your home against burglers, though.


Think about it in the context of needing to be armed in order to keep the government at bay, for which Iraq is being used as a successful example. 50 assorted handguns and shotguns, or the (apparently) common concealed handgun, won't do anything against government forces, police or military. RPGs and homemade bombs are a huge step away from a shotgun collection, and I don't think anyone here is advocating keeping a real arsenal in a home.

BTW every Iraqi household has at least one gun. Every.

Tom


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> As military force goes, rifles, RPGs, some morters, yes, lightly armed. This would definately be heavily armed if you were defending your home against burglers, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it in the context of needing to be armed in order to keep the government at bay, for which Iraq is being used as a successful example. 50 assorted handguns and shotguns, or the (apparently) common concealed handgun, won't do anything against government forces, police or military. RPGs and homemade bombs are a huge step away from a shotgun collection, and I don't think anyone here is advocating keeping a real arsenal in a home.
> 
> BTW every Iraqi household has at least one gun. Every.
> 
> Tom
Click to expand...

and just for clarity, Tom, how many of those are handguns? and how many do you think or AK-47's?


----------



## tiger02

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> and just for clarity, Tom, how many of those are handguns? and how many do you think or AK-47's?


Oof, I can't give you anything other than a guess...I'd say almost all are AK 47s. Handguns are kept for personal protection, usually carried by bodyguards. Some people keep them in their cars. Yeah, I'd say almost all household guns are AKs.

Tom


----------



## mokita

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> 
> mokita, I obviously misinterpreted much of you were saying. It looks like we agree on the ability of lightly armed insurgents being an effective force in a guerilla war.


Yes, I think we probably are in general agreement.



> quote:With regard to Korea and Vietnam, I believe I heard the 3 million number mentioned in a recent 60 minutes piece on the state of Vietnam today. Perhaps that included civilians, or maybe is just not a good number.


War casualty numbers are always guesses and there are always sources that disagree by large differences. The only thing that I think we can be sure of is that in both wars, US casualties were far less than enemy casualties.



> quote:I would argue that we won in Korea, preventing the commies from taking over the south, and tying down both Chinese and Russian resources for three years.


My take on Korea is that both sides agreed to stop shooting and have been in a military standoff for over half a century. I don't consider that to be a victory for the US. If we had any claim to success it would not require a permanent military presence in a foreign country. At this point, I think South Korea should be expected to defend itself.



> quote:Vietnam, well, I go back and forth on that one. We were not militarily defeated,


Really? I thought US troops literally fled from South Vietnam in 1975 as the North Vietnamese troops poured into Saigon. Our military abandoned materials and weapons, fleeing for their lives. South Vietnam was captured and became part of a united Vietnam.



> quote:We did, once again, cause the expenditure of massive economic and human resource by the communists, Vietnamese and Russian, that they could ill afford.


They did afford it and Vietnam still exists and functions without the US. Whether the US military action there averted other conflicts is open to speculation.



> quote:My Liberator info comes from two iffy sources. One, a gun magazine article a few years ago (don't recall the mag) and a more recent History channel special on the French resistance that included a brief segment on the piece. It did not mention anything about the Philippines, though. I cannot speak to its use there, but I bet it would be a great story.


The guns were interesting for a number of reasons. Since they were intended for use by resistance fighters, I doubt that there is any history of how frequently they were used in China or the Philippines, but I cannot imagine any motivation for producing the Deer Gun, if the Liberator was a flop. Obviously, both guns were intended to have a working range measured in inches. They were basically mass produced zip guns.


----------



## FlatSix

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> I'll add this thought about the Liberator. Anyone shot with (or even threatened by) a Liberator would probably be armed with some kind of military weapon. Thus, there would have beeen a conversion/multiplier factor. One Liberator could have put a military semi-auto pistol or a bolt action rifle in the hands whoever possessed it. At that point, the issue of whether or not the freedom fighter was "checked out" on the particular weapon would become a factor. That's where a gun culture like the United States has an advantage. When such conversions took place in the Warsaw ghetto, they had to start training on the spot.


There's a quote somewhere there that goes something like,

"With a knife (or a Liberator, presumably) we can get a pistol. With a pistol, we can get a rifle. With a rifle, we can get a tank. With a tank, we can accomplish something."

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

"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


----------



## Badrabbit

Forget American Express. These are the two things I never leave home without.



My Ruger P94 in 40 S&W and my six string.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> I'll add this thought about the Liberator. Anyone shot with (or even threatened by) a Liberator would probably be armed with some kind of military weapon. Thus, there would have beeen a conversion/multiplier factor. One Liberator could have put a military semi-auto pistol or a bolt action rifle in the hands whoever possessed it. At that point, the issue of whether or not the freedom fighter was "checked out" on the particular weapon would become a factor. That's where a gun culture like the United States has an advantage. When such conversions took place in the Warsaw ghetto, they had to start training on the spot.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a quote somewhere there that goes something like,
> 
> "With a knife (or a Liberator, presumably) we can get a pistol. With a pistol, we can get a rifle. With a rifle, we can get a tank. With a tank, we can accomplish something."
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> "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...

don't get all up in my face about bringing up experience - but during the time I was with the IDF, and we were fighting people who considered us occupying lebanon and the west bank and gaza, I don't think that more than a dozen successful attempts (out of hundreds) were made at taking firearms away from soldiers, and they all fit a very similar mold - 3 cleanshaven and light skined men in a late model care would give a ride to an israeli soldier and attack him in the car with knives. I don't think that any attack on soldiers with firearms ended with the attackers running away with guns - typically even with a successful ambush the attackers didn't want to get involved in taking the guns and carrying them away, or they were too excited by the fight.


----------



## DukeGrad

Gentlemen

Badrabbit, I love that Ruger!

Flatsix, lol, great point!

Mokita, we did not run in 1975.
We hauled a s s.
We left a small force in that time frame, to work with the vietnamese.
There was not a large contingent, as in the late 1960 time frame.
This was the plan in that withdrawal.
I just finished 2 books about the Marine Corps and what they did in that last year!
I was curious about that time in Vietnam as well.
It is amazing reading.



Jimmy


----------



## JLibourel

On the matter of the Liberator pistol, I think the reason it was never distributed en masse was not because DeGaulle was worried about their getting into the hands of criminals after the war. Rather it was found that the Sten Gun, which was an efficient military weapon in its own right, could be produced so cheaply that that was what was distributed to the Resistance.

I have read that huge numbers of Liberators were stockpiled in England at the end of the war. Many found their way into the hands of children, who used them as toys!


----------



## FlatSix

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> don't get all up in my face about bringing up experience - but during the time I was with the IDF, and we were fighting people who considered us occupying lebanon and the west bank and gaza, I don't think that more than a dozen successful attempts (out of hundreds) were made at taking firearms away from soldiers, and they all fit a very similar mold - 3 cleanshaven and light skined men in a late model care would give a ride to an israeli soldier and attack him in the car with knives. I don't think that any attack on soldiers with firearms ended with the attackers running away with guns - typically even with a successful ambush the attackers didn't want to get involved in taking the guns and carrying them away, or they were too excited by the fight.


*That* is the kind of stuff I wish you would post more of, to be frank. It's vastly more helpful, and interesting, than sitting back in your wicker chair and ranting about hillbillies with engraved .45s 

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

"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


----------



## tiger02

> quote:_Originally posted by FlatSix_
> 
> *That* is the kind of stuff I wish you would post more of, to be frank. It's vastly more helpful, and interesting, than sitting back in your wicker chair and ranting about hillbillies with engraved .45s


What was I saying about NASCAR fans again?


----------



## Rich

An interesting letter in today's Daily Telegraph (UK)

*Give us back the right to stand and fight*

Telling high-earners to cower, skulk and hide to avoid violent criminals is exactly what is needed for predators to thrive. The advice effectively encourages violent crime.

This sorry situation is due directly to successive Governments giving criminals an absolute guarantee that their victims will be completely unarmed. The reality is that our streets and homes will never be safe until we are once again allowed to defend ourselves properly and that means being allowed to use firearms, as we were prior to 1920.

Roger Taylor, Meols, Wirral


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> An interesting letter in today's Daily Telegraph (UK)
> 
> *Give us back the right to stand and fight*
> 
> Telling high-earners to cower, skulk and hide to avoid violent criminals is exactly what is needed for predators to thrive. The advice effectively encourages violent crime.
> 
> This sorry situation is due directly to successive Governments giving criminals an absolute guarantee that their victims will be completely unarmed. The reality is that our streets and homes will never be safe until we are once again allowed to defend ourselves properly and that means being allowed to use firearms, as we were prior to 1920.
> 
> Roger Taylor, Meols, Wirral


Interesting letter..."high earners." Looks like a pretty bright line is developing over there. Let's see. There is a well defended, heavily guarded symbolic royal class who sort of does not produce much, and a productive "high earner" class who has been rendered defenseless against a lower "consumer class" who arms themselves with whatever they want. And that's a good, quick and dirty, assesment of the effect of gun laws in the UK since 1920. In furtherance of that:

"Incidentally, the NRA's call to help arm Britain in 1940 resulted in the collection of more than 7,000 firearms for Britain's defense against potential invasion by Germany (Britain had virtually disarmed itself with a series of gun control laws enacted between World War I and World War II)."

https://www.nrahq.org/history.asp

Under the threat of Nazi invasion, they had, in fact been distributed to individuals. Of course, all the firearms were dutifly returned to the NRA after the war in spite of the fact that it's my understanding that the donors considered them to be gifts. There is one firearm in the NRA museum, I think, that has a small engraved plaque thanking the owner from the guy who had it attached to the stock.


----------



## Lord Foppington

To hell with guns. Real gentlemen carry swords.

Stap my vitals!


----------



## Long Way of Drums

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> On the matter of the Liberator pistol, I think the reason it was never distributed en masse was not because DeGaulle was worried about their getting into the hands of criminals after the war. Rather it was found that the Sten Gun, which was an efficient military weapon in its own right, could be produced so cheaply that that was what was distributed to the Resistance.
> 
> I have read that huge numbers of Liberators were stockpiled in England at the end of the war. Many found their way into the hands of children, who used them as toys!


To my knowledge, all but a couple thousand were rather immediately dumped to the bottom of the Channel after the war. Those that survived never really saw much use, crime or otherwise.

They are not, however, only effective out to a few feet, and I suspect their accuracy might surprise you. A guy on THR got ahold of one and did a writeup: https://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=172677



> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> An interesting letter in today's Daily Telegraph (UK)
> 
> ...
> 
> This sorry situation is due directly to successive Governments giving criminals an absolute guarantee that their victims will be completely unarmed. The reality is that our streets and homes will never be safe until we are once again allowed to defend ourselves properly and that means being allowed to use firearms, as we were prior to 1920.
> 
> Roger Taylor, Meols, Wirral


I cannot abide this sort of asinine posturing. Believing that you can eradicate crime by giving everyone guns is every bit as egregious comical as believing you can do the same by taking them all away.

"Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."

"Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughtta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keels. Makes her home."

*We will not walk in fear, one of another.*


----------



## tiger02

The Dude abides...


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by Long Way of Drums_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> On the matter of the Liberator pistol, I think the reason it was never distributed en masse was not because DeGaulle was worried about their getting into the hands of criminals after the war. Rather it was found that the Sten Gun, which was an efficient military weapon in its own right, could be produced so cheaply that that was what was distributed to the Resistance.
> 
> I have read that huge numbers of Liberators were stockpiled in England at the end of the war. Many found their way into the hands of children, who used them as toys!
> 
> 
> 
> To my knowledge, all but a couple thousand were rather immediately dumped to the bottom of the Channel after the war. Those that survived never really saw much use, crime or otherwise.
> 
> They are not, however, only effective out to a few feet, and I suspect their accuracy might surprise you. A guy on THR got ahold of one and did a writeup: https://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=172677
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> An interesting letter in today's Daily Telegraph (UK)
> 
> ...
> 
> This sorry situation is due directly to successive Governments giving criminals an absolute guarantee that their victims will be completely unarmed. The reality is that our streets and homes will never be safe until we are once again allowed to defend ourselves properly and that means being allowed to use firearms, as we were prior to 1920.
> 
> Roger Taylor, Meols, Wirral
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cannot abide this sort of asinine posturing. Believing that you can eradicate crime by giving everyone guns is every bit as egregious comical as believing you can do the same by taking them all away.
> 
> "Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."
> 
> "Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughtta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keels. Makes her home."
> 
> *We will not walk in fear, one of another.*
Click to expand...

Drums,

The issue in the UK is not only guns, but they have made the use of any force in self defense virtually illegal. It is even illegal in some areas to carry a walking stick unless you have proof from a doctor of medical necessity. Firearms are simply the most efficient form of self defense, especially for women and the infirm. But the problem is that denying them to the innocent was only a first step in a series of laws and rulings that has resulted in the virtual surrendering of the society to the criminal element.


----------



## TE Hesketh

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> The issue in the UK is not only guns, but they have made the use of any force in self defense virtually illegal. It is even illegal in some areas to carry a walking stick unless you have proof from a doctor of medical necessity.
> .....only a first step in a series of laws and rulings that has resulted in the virtual surrendering of the society to the criminal element.


As a Brit, the only response I can give to this is; utter bollocks.
1. Every person is allowed to use "reasonable force" to defend themselves. In a celebrated case a few years ago the Judge and Jury agreed that shooting an unarmed man in the back as he was running away constituted neither reasonable force nor self defence.
2. Walking sticks illegal. Where do you get this rubbish from?
3. "surrendering of society to the criminal element"? Have you ever visited the UK? I was born and raised there and go back regularly to visit friends and family. I can state quite categorically that society has not been surrendered to anything, apart from perhaps apathy.

Yours in astonishment.

Rob


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by TE Hesketh_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> The issue in the UK is not only guns, but they have made the use of any force in self defense virtually illegal. It is even illegal in some areas to carry a walking stick unless you have proof from a doctor of medical necessity.
> .....only a first step in a series of laws and rulings that has resulted in the virtual surrendering of the society to the criminal element.
> 
> 
> 
> As a Brit, the only response I can give to this is; utter bollocks.
> 1. Every person is allowed to use "reasonable force" to defend themselves. In a celebrated case a few years ago the Judge and Jury agreed that shooting an unarmed man in the back as he was running away constituted neither reasonable force nor self defence.
> 2. Walking sticks illegal. Where do you get this rubbish from?
> 3. "surrendering of society to the criminal element"? Have you ever visited the UK? I was born and raised there and go back regularly to visit friends and family. I can state quite categorically that society has not been surrendered to anything, apart from perhaps apathy.
> 
> Yours in astonishment.
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...

Rob,
Please don't take offense. I researched this at length some time ago. The statute I am referring to is in your "Offensive Weapons Act of 1996." In it, you are prohibited from carrying any weapon of any kind for the purpose of offense _or defense_. If you have anything sharp, like a screwdriver, you need to be able to justify having it in your possession.

On a quick search to defend my honor after my casual comment, I found this on the Avon and Somerset Constabulary web site:

"The law does not allow you to carry a knife or any other weapon for self-defence."

In the states, anything can be legally classified as a "weapon" once it is used as such. Thus, in court, a lamp, if used to strike someone in offense or defense, becomes a "weapon" for the sake of argument.

At some point, I had located a jurisdiction in which it was necessary to have a "doctor's excuse," a statement of medical necessity, to be out and about with a cane or walking stick. I'll try to find that. I know that strictly defensive items like kubatons (a 6 inch wooden dowel) are illegal under the 1996 act. While you might be right and "force" might be tolerated as part of self-defense under your current law, the government clearly intends that to mean your bare hands. This really puts a lot of people who obey the law at a disadvantage to those who don't. Why?


----------



## bosthist

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> ]
> Rob,
> Please don't take offense. I researched this at length some time ago. The statute I am referring to is in your "Offensive Weapons Act of 1996." In it, you are prohibited from carrying any weapon of any kind for the purpose of offense _or defense_. If you have anything sharp, like a screwdriver, you need to be able to justify having it in your possession.
> 
> On a quick search to defend my honor after my casual comment, I found this on the Avon and Somerset Constabulary web site:
> 
> "The law does not allow you to carry a knife or any other weapon for self-defence."
> 
> In the states, anything can be legally classified as a "weapon" once it is used as such. Thus, in court, a lamp, if used to strike someone in offense or defense, becomes a "weapon" for the sake of argument.
> 
> At some point, I had located a jurisdiction in which it was necessary to have a "doctor's excuse," a statement of medical necessity, to be out and about with a cane or walking stick. I'll try to find that. I know that strictly defensive items like kubatons (a 6 inch wooden dowel) are illegal under the 1996 act. While you might be right and "force" might be tolerated as part of self-defense under your current law, the government clearly intends that to mean your bare hands. This really puts a lot of people who obey the law at a disadvantage to those who don't. Why?


Unfortunately Liberty Ship, offensive weapons are very clearly defined in England, and your inclusion of what passes for a weapon "in the states" is a red herring, to wit:

'Offensive weapon' is defined as any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use. The courts have been reluctant to find many weapons as falling within the first limb of the definition and reliance should usually be placed upon the second. On that basis it must be shown that the defendant intended to use the article for causing injury.

And:

For the caselaw on instances of weapons considered to be offensive per se <Archbold 24-116>.

Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 prohibits the possession in a public place of any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed (including a folding pocketknife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 7.62cm/3 inches). <Archbold, 24.125>

Both offences under Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 and Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are triable either-way. The offence of having an offensive weapon carries a maximum sentence of four years imprisonment on indictment. Having a bladed article carries two years imprisonment on indictment.

Section 139A of the 1988 Act extends the geographical scope of both of the above offences to school premises.

Sections 1 and 2 of the Knives Act 1997 prohibit the marketing of a knife in a way which suggests it is suitable for combat or otherwise encourages violent behavior using the knife as a weapon. <Archbold 24-133>

The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 prohibits the manufacture, sale or possession for sale or hire, of 'flick knives' and 'gravity knives'. <Stones 8-22469>

The Crossbows Act 1987 prohibits the sale to, or possession or purchase by, a person under the age of 17 of certain types of crossbow. <Stones 8-22660>

Walking sticks are not made for use to cause injury and are not banned.


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> ]
> Rob,
> Please don't take offense. I researched this at length some time ago. The statute I am referring to is in your "Offensive Weapons Act of 1996." In it, you are prohibited from carrying any weapon of any kind for the purpose of offense _or defense_. If you have anything sharp, like a screwdriver, you need to be able to justify having it in your possession.
> 
> On a quick search to defend my honor after my casual comment, I found this on the Avon and Somerset Constabulary web site:
> 
> "The law does not allow you to carry a knife or any other weapon for self-defence."
> 
> In the states, anything can be legally classified as a "weapon" once it is used as such. Thus, in court, a lamp, if used to strike someone in offense or defense, becomes a "weapon" for the sake of argument.
> 
> At some point, I had located a jurisdiction in which it was necessary to have a "doctor's excuse," a statement of medical necessity, to be out and about with a cane or walking stick. I'll try to find that. I know that strictly defensive items like kubatons (a 6 inch wooden dowel) are illegal under the 1996 act. While you might be right and "force" might be tolerated as part of self-defense under your current law, the government clearly intends that to mean your bare hands. This really puts a lot of people who obey the law at a disadvantage to those who don't. Why?
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately Liberty Ship, offensive weapons are very clearly defined in England, and your inclusion of what passes for a weapon "in the states" is a red herring, to wit:
> 
> 'Offensive weapon' is defined as any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use. The courts have been reluctant to find many weapons as falling within the first limb of the definition and reliance should usually be placed upon the second. On that basis it must be shown that the defendant intended to use the article for causing injury.
> 
> And:
> 
> For the caselaw on instances of weapons considered to be offensive per se <Archbold 24-116>.
> 
> Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 prohibits the possession in a public place of any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed (including a folding pocketknife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 7.62cm/3 inches). <Archbold, 24.125>
> 
> Both offences under Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 and Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are triable either-way. The offence of having an offensive weapon carries a maximum sentence of four years imprisonment on indictment. Having a bladed article carries two years imprisonment on indictment.
> 
> Section 139A of the 1988 Act extends the geographical scope of both of the above offences to school premises.
> 
> Sections 1 and 2 of the Knives Act 1997 prohibit the marketing of a knife in a way which suggests it is suitable for combat or otherwise encourages violent behavior using the knife as a weapon. <Archbold 24-133>
> 
> The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 prohibits the manufacture, sale or possession for sale or hire, of 'flick knives' and 'gravity knives'. <Stones 8-22469>
> 
> The Crossbows Act 1987 prohibits the sale to, or possession or purchase by, a person under the age of 17 of certain types of crossbow. <Stones 8-22660>
> 
> Walking sticks are not made for use to cause injury and are not banned.
Click to expand...

I accept your well documented rationalization. Clearly, England is the _beau ideal_ of the right to self-defense.

One question, though. Is there such a thing as a legal self-defense weapon, such as is presumed by the Avon and Somerset Constabulatory when they say, "The law does not allow you to carry a knife or any other weapon for self-defence."

What weapons are legal for self-defense in England?


----------



## globetrotter

LS - here I think I am very close to your side. I get the feeling that London, and much of the UK, has become a great deal more dangerous in recent years. I also see that they are very serious about what you can and cannot carry for your own self defence. I think that there is a direct relationship between the two.

and as much as I am against firearms for personal defence - I am very much in favor of things like gas, kubotons, batons, umbrellas, etc.


----------



## bosthist

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> I accept your well documented rationalization. Clearly, England is the _beau ideal_ of the right to self-defense.
> 
> One question, though. Is there such a thing as a legal self-defense weapon, such as is presumed by the Avon and Somerset Constabulatory when they say, "The law does not allow you to carry a knife or any other weapon for self-defence."
> 
> What weapons are legal for self-defense in England?


There is no need to be snide about what I wrote; it certainly isn't a "rationalization". No one said anything about England being the "beau ideal" of self defense. You were simply wrong in your reading of the law.

My guess is that the Avon and Somerset Constabulatory assumed that people in England know the law regarding offensive weapons and can differentiate between a knife, a gun, and a walking stick.

My guess is that anything that wasn't specifically made or adapted for use as a weapon (and adapted means something like a screwdriver filed to a point, not an ad hoc decision to use an umbrella to fend off an attacker) is legal. You come at me with a knife, I can clock you with my walking stick, cricket bat, lamp, piano, or anything else I feel will do the trick. The law, as noted by another poster, doesn't mean one can't defend oneself.

And if England has surrendered itself to the criminal element because they won't let you walk around with an offensive weapon, exactly how do you explain the presence of crime in armed to the teeth America?


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> I accept your well documented rationalization. Clearly, England is the _beau ideal_ of the right to self-defense.
> 
> One question, though. Is there such a thing as a legal self-defense weapon, such as is presumed by the Avon and Somerset Constabulatory when they say, "The law does not allow you to carry a knife or any other weapon for self-defence."
> 
> What weapons are legal for self-defense in England?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no need to be snide about what I wrote; it certainly isn't a "rationalization". No one said anything about England being the "beau ideal" of self defense. You were simply wrong in your reading of the law.
> 
> My guess is that the Avon and Somerset Constabulatory assumed that people in England know the law regarding offensive weapons and can differentiate between a knife, a gun, and a walking stick.
> 
> My guess is that anything that wasn't specifically made or adapted for use as a weapon (and adapted means something like a screwdriver filed to a point, not an ad hoc decision to use an umbrella to fend off an attacker) is legal. You come at me with a knife, I can clock you with my walking stick, cricket bat, lamp, piano, or anything else I feel will do the trick. The law, as noted by another poster, doesn't mean one can't defend oneself.
> 
> And if England has surrendered itself to the criminal element because they won't let you walk around with an offensive weapon, exactly how do you explain the presence of crime in armed to the teeth America?
Click to expand...

My apologies. It was not my intention to make this personal. I was still reeling from the bollocks comment!


----------



## Long Way of Drums

America is hardly armed to the teeth. The vast majority of private citizens have never so much as touched a handgun. If you want to form an opinion on the use and monoplization of force in modern society, you would do well to be informed _first_.

And though the UK is subject to much hyperbole about its self defense laws, other countries are not. I know a guy who went to jail (albeit briefly) for fighting off two muggers in Oslo _with the weapon he was attacked with_.

In any case, my point remains the same. While I am a firm believer in the right and responsiblity of free people to bear arms, people who believe all of society's problems can be solved with the judicious application of bullets are every bit as ridiculous as the people who believe that utopia will break out, the grass will be greener, and the sun will solve global energy crises instead of giving you cancerâ€" if _only_ we could get rid of those guns.

I can sympathize people people who want less gun restriction in the UK. In fact, I greatly support it. But resorting to absurdity to justify it is just stupid.

"Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."

"Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughtta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keels. Makes her home."

*We will not walk in fear, one of another.*


----------



## JLibourel

> quote:_Originally posted by Long Way of Drums_
> 
> America is hardly armed to the teeth. The vast majority of private citizens have never so much as touched a handgun.


Are you being hyperbolic here? I would hardly say that the "vast majority of private citizens have never so much as touched a handgun." Most statistics indicate that about 40 percent of all American households contain firearms. It is the belief of every knowledgeable person in the firearms industry that I have ever discussed the matter with that the "official" estimates of 220 million privately owned firearms in the USA are far, far too low. Most estimates I have been given are more like 400 to 500 million guns in America. One of the most knowledgeable and senior industry veterans I know stated that he thought the figure was more like 750 million (and this was maybe a decade ago).

I would hazard that most small-town and rural males have not only handled but shot pistols. The same would apply to everyone who has had military, police or armed security training (a very substantial portion of the population still). A great many urban males own and shot handguns as well (for good or ill). Approximately 10% of all handgun purchasers are women, and enormous numbers of other women have shot handguns under the tutelage of husbands, fathers, brothers or boyfriends.

If we factor out children, I would surmise that the majority of the American male population have shot a handgun at some point in their lives and a very sizable percentage of the female population as well. A great many more have examined or handled firearms belonging to friends, etc.


----------



## Long Way of Drums

In my experience, most of the people in this country with experience with firearms tend to have handled shotguns or rifles. That may not be an accurate cross section of the country (in fact, I'm fairly sure it's not), but that is very much the impression I tend to get.

"Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."

"Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughtta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keels. Makes her home."

*We will not walk in fear, one of another.*


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Long Way of Drums_
> 
> America is hardly armed to the teeth. The vast majority of private citizens have never so much as touched a handgun.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you being hyperbolic here? I would hardly say that the "vast majority of private citizens have never so much as touched a handgun." Most statistics indicate that about 40 percent of all American households contain firearms. It is the belief of every knowledgeable person in the firearms industry that I have ever discussed the matter with that the "official" estimates of 220 million privately owned firearms in the USA are far, far too low. Most estimates I have been given are more like 400 to 500 million guns in America. One of the most knowledgeable and senior industry veterans I know stated that he thought the figure was more like 750 million (and this was maybe a decade ago).
> 
> I would hazard that most small-town and rural males have not only handled but shot pistols. The same would apply to everyone who has had military, police or armed security training (a very substantial portion of the population still). A great many urban males own and shot handguns as well (for good or ill). Approximately 10% of all handgun purchasers are women, and enormous numbers of other women have shot handguns under the tutelage of husbands, fathers, brothers or boyfriends.
> 
> If we factor out children, I would surmise that the majority of the American male population have shot a handgun at some point in their lives and a very sizable percentage of the female population as well. A great many more have examined or handled firearms belonging to friends, etc.
Click to expand...

I once assisted Paxton Quigley in giving an introductory Women's (firearms) Personal Protection class in Georgia. There were maybe 20 women in the class. At the beginning of the class, Paxton asked how many in the class had ever fired a handgun before. Every hand went up but one, as I recall. Paxton said, "That's a lot of you! I don't usually see that in these classes." One of the students replied, "Well, you're in the South now!"


----------



## bosthist

> quote:_Originally posted by Long Way of Drums_
> 
> America is hardly armed to the teeth. The vast majority of private citizens have never so much as touched a handgun. If you want to form an opinion on the use and monoplization of force in modern society, you would do well to be informed _first_.


I'm not sure who you are calling uninformed but I'm assuming you mean me. Although Jan has already countered your claim, I will ask you this: what is your evidence for saying the "vast majority of private citizens have never so much as touched a handgun"? I would argue that a ratio of one firearm for every person living in the United States is pretty much armed to the teeth, and that doesn't even include the myriad other weapons people carry.


----------



## Long Way of Drums

The majority of Americans do not own firearms, and the majority of American firearm owners do not carry sidearms. How, exactly, is America armed to the teeth?

Many foreigners have a very warped view of America, as if it were still the 1870s and people still wore braces of pistols everywhereâ€" and this, of course, is why America has violent crime.

"Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."

"Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughtta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keels. Makes her home."

*We will not walk in fear, one of another.*


----------



## Rich

> quote:_Originally posted by Long Way of Drums_
> 
> The majority of Americans do not own firearms, and the majority of American firearm owners do not carry sidearms. How, exactly, is America armed to the teeth?


If this is so, then the figures on gun ownership quoted above mean either that a minority of Americans own very large numbers of guns, or that there are stockpiles. Whichever is the case they mean that _America _ is certainly well armed.


----------



## TE Hesketh

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> My apologies. It was not my intention to make this personal. I was still reeling from the bollocks comment!


My apologies LS, I overreacted. I should perhaps have just written "rubbish"!  Your statements were manifestly incorrect though.

Regarding Globetrotters point that he feels parts of London less safe than previously. They may be, other parts may be safer, but this is very much a matter of perception.
That be as it may, its a perception that many londers share, however these perceptions are often fuelled by whatever crusade the popular press are on at the time (the reason guns were banned in the UK incidentaly).
I am always very suspicious of people harking back to a time when there was less crime, more respect etc. Although I am too young to have experienced it myself (so Flatsix can accuse me of being credulous again) my Mother was a midwife in Manchester after the war and even at that time there were areas where the police would only go in groups. Glasgow was famous in the '60s for having no-go areas and gangs would cut people with a razor "just for fun".

Regards
Rob


----------



## Briguy

*And if England has surrendered itself to the criminal element because they won't let you walk around with an offensive weapon, exactly how do you explain the presence of crime in armed to the teeth America?*

Actually, if you look at the violent crime statistics (as published by the FBI), you would see that the vast majority of violent crime in the US occurs in a small number of zip (postal) codes. These places are poverty stricken, drug infested, crime ridden cesspools of human carnage. Look at the crime rate for the rest of the country, and it is as low as any comparable area in Western Europe.

The influence of these ghetto areas on national statistics is massive. For example, it is often repeated that the infant mortality rate in the US is on par with the Third World. It is only because of the staggering infant death rate in these ghetto areas, where mothers are on drugs, crack babies are common, and pre-natal care is infrequent and incomplete (even though it is provided free, by virtue of Medicaid, or various other programs in place in poor areas). Exclude these ghetto areas, and, once again, the US stats are comparable to those of other first world countries.


----------



## Briguy

Ah, I see TE Hesketh was making the same point as I was posting. Really, in each our our countries, there are a small number of places which account for the majority of the violent crime. Outside of these areas, crime is infrequent and the streets are generally safe.


----------



## bosthist

> quote:_Originally posted by Long Way of Drums_
> 
> The majority of Americans do not own firearms, and the majority of American firearm owners do not carry sidearms. How, exactly, is America armed to the teeth?


You didn't answer my question. I asked for evidence that "vast majority of private citizens have never so much as touched a handgun". You have none so you change your claims. You say the majority of Americans don't own firearms. Considering that about 25% of the American population is under 18 and can't legally purchase a gun, that's a pretty safe bet. But owning a gun and having access to a gun isn't the same thing is it?

Given that there are hundreds of millions of guns in the United States (over a 1:1 ratio, using Jan's numbers), that 40% of all households have firearms, and not including other weapons (I didn't say firearms, I said armed--I carry a knife for example), then yes, America is armed to the teeth. 40% of households having a firearm means a great deal access to firearms. I suppose we will just have to differ about what constitutes "armed to the teeth".

Briguy:

Those zip codes are still part of the United States despite your best efforts to exclude them. But let's leave out your "ghetto areas". You say "US stats are comparable to those of Western european countries. If the presence of weapons deters crime, why aren't U.S. statistics _lower_ than other countries for the non-ghetto areas? I mean, all of these weapons and all we can do is have the same crime rate?

I would also be interested to know the rate of non-violent crimes, not violent crimes, because most people claim they own firearms to prevent property crimes like house break-ins rather than to go out and murder someone.

I'm not sure about your mention of infant mortality, because it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Infant mortality rates are higher in rural areas as well so should we leave them out to make our statistics look better? Or does the lack of "crack babies" in those areas confound your argument? The lowest infant mortality rates are in the suburbs of large metropolitan areas.


----------



## bosthist

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> My apologies. It was not my intention to make this personal. I was still reeling from the bollocks comment!


Apology accepted.


----------



## tiger02

LWOD has been fairly up front in saying that he's extrapolating the rest of the country from the sample of people who he has met. You don't need to agree with his methods or results, but there's no reason to keep asking for numbers when he has said they're not there.

I could be way off here, but I believe you (LWOD) are also something like a college sophomore at a New England school? Surely you understand that's a difficult population to project onto the rest of the country.

Tom


----------



## bosthist

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> LWOD has been fairly up front in saying that he's extrapolating the rest of the country from the sample of people who he has met. You don't need to agree with his methods or results, but there's no reason to keep asking for numbers when he has said they're not there.


Tiger02:

LWOD has made several assertions, not all of which are based on the sample of people he has met. I think asking for numbers or at least a citation where I can find the numbers is valid. I really don't care if people own guns or not--my concern is that they are handled safely--but I do like to have an honest discussion.

LWOD has claimed:

(1) "America is hardly armed to the teeth. *The vast majority of private citizens have never so much as touched a handgun.* If you want to form an opinion on the use and monoplization of force in modern society, you would do well to be informed first."

This is an assertions of fact which LWOD should be able to support if it is true. I'm interested in seeing a reference. He has not said that the citation for this exists or does not exist.

(2) "In my experience, most of the people in this country with experience with firearms tend to have handled shotguns or rifles. That may not be an accurate cross section of the country (in fact, I'm fairly sure it's not), but that is very much the impression I tend to get."

This is extrapolated from the people he has met, which is fine, as far as it goes.

(3) " The majority of Americans do not own firearms, and the majority of American firearm owners do not carry sidearms."

The first part of this is almost certainly true, given that Americans encompasses every man woman and child who is a citizen, the second part is absolutely true.


----------



## Liberty Ship

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> My apologies. It was not my intention to make this personal. I was still reeling from the bollocks comment!
> 
> 
> 
> Apology accepted.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

Delayed Stress Syndrome from other lists may have caused me to invoke the _Code Duello_ sooner than I should have. These fora are amazing, and unique amongst those I frequent. I attribute that to the fact that those here aspire to be Gentlemen first.

On the Internet, we are all like icebergs passing in the fog. The small fraction of each of us that is exposed is often hard to make out, and the greatest part of each of us will remain forever unseen. So misunderstandings are likely to be the norm.

These misunderstandings, however, can be mitigated by courtesy and manners, two things noticably absent on many lists.

I am still involved in fact checking my statements; maybe I can document them, maybe not. Regardless, I don't think I'll change any minds here. But keeping this a civil envoronment is more important than "winning" an argument with a technical trump.

So, again, I apologize for making it personal and, again, thank you for your gracious acceptance.


----------



## JLibourel

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote:_Originally posted by Long Way of Drums_
> 
> The majority of Americans do not own firearms, and the majority of American firearm owners do not carry sidearms. How, exactly, is America armed to the teeth?
> 
> 
> 
> If this is so, then the figures on gun ownership quoted above mean either that a minority of Americans own very large numbers of guns, or that there are stockpiles. Whichever is the case they mean that _America _ is certainly well armed.
Click to expand...

Some data suggests that a very large percentage of the civilian stock of firearms is in relatively few hands. I have known many individuals who have owned literally hundreds of firearms, many more than even I do!


----------



## Briguy

bothist, you are right, I did go off on a tangent about the infant deaths.

I do not believe it is realistic to look at any given country's firearms ownership rate and use only that to make any inference as to the impact of firearms on crime. Principally, because the occurrence of crime in any given culture or country is unique to that culture or country and minimally, if at all, related to the possession of firearms. 

For example, private firearms ownership is minimal in Japan, and the crime rate there is extremely low. In the US, the crime rate of persons of Japanese decent is as low as Japan itself, even though those persons were born and raised in the US where firearms are freely available. 

Looking at a given country or culture and examining the crime statistics before strict gun control is put into place, and looking those stats after gun control is in place, might give us some information about the impact of lawfully owned firearms in that specific culture. For example, in the UK and Australia, after strict gun bans were enacted, the violent crime rate, including the use of guns by criminals, significantly increased. We see the same effect in US cities that have enacted strict gun controls (DC, Chicago, NY). 

The #1 question is did violent crime increase because firearms were withdrawn from lawful ownership, or was gun control put into place because of escalating crime, and, because the guns were not causing the crime in the first place, removing them from law abiding citizens did not serve to reduce the already increasing crime rate? 

I do think it reasonable for me to exclude 'ghetto' areas from the evaluation of the big picture of US crime and violence, as they are largely responsible for the majority of murders and violent crime occurring in the US. A person visiting the US is not more likely to be a victim of crime here that they are back home, unless they plan on selling drugs or hanging out with criminals. Yes, the US is a very dangerous place to be a criminal, no doubt.


----------



## TE Hesketh

> quote:_Originally posted by Briguy_
> Looking at a given country or culture and examining the crime statistics before strict gun control is put into place, and looking those stats after gun control is in place, might give us some information about the impact of lawfully owned firearms in that specific culture. For example, in the UK and Australia, after strict gun bans were enacted, the violent crime rate, including the use of guns by criminals, significantly increased. We see the same effect in US cities that have enacted strict gun controls (DC, Chicago, NY).
> 
> The #1 question is did violent crime increase because firearms were withdrawn from lawful ownership, or was gun control put into place because of escalating crime, and, because the guns were not causing the crime in the first place, removing them from law abiding citizens did not serve to reduce the already increasing crime rate?


In the case of the UK at least it would be easy but completely wrong to make any connections between these matters. You have to bear in mind that before the firearms ban gun ownership was anyway very low in the UK, and very strictly regulated and controlled. I very much doubt if there were any cases where a legally owned firearm was used to prevent a violent crime. The reason firearms were in the end banned were not due to an increase in violent crime as such, but was triggered by a heavily armed madman (who had his guns legally) going on the rampage in a small village. The resultant public outrage and a press campaign secured the ban.

Regarding gun use by criminals I read a report on this some time ago, which suggested that the primary factor was quite simply the availability/price of black market weapons. Peaks in gun crime were supposed to have occurred, for example, after the Falklands war, when many returning servicemen brought home captured guns illegally as souvenirs and later sold them. Also during and after the Balkans conflict, there was a flood of guns into Europe as a whole, along with a criminal class prepared to use them. Other factors also come into play of course such as the rise in drug abuse, attitudes etc. but the fact remains that (as with drugs) an increase in supply seems to lead to an increase in use.


----------



## dueceman455

I have not posted a message on this interesting topic in a while, but I could not resist. To my Continental friends, the United States is not like Europe. This includes my friends in Great Britain. Our gun laws are different. However, as many folks say diversity in opinions are of the most importance, I implore you to see that with our firearms laws. 
To show such a biased view towards gun ownership, due to your own particular country of orgin's view of firearms is silly.
To be honest, it reminds me of the BBC's poll back in 2004 if the world should have a "vote" in our presidential elections. Let's be honest, no other country would want "us" prodding in your business. Even though the United States has done that in the past. However, I feel that views towards the Americans use of firearms has some sort of sick twist with overseas viewers. While I can understand this, I feel it is not right. 
Regards once more,
Dueceman

Life is excellent so long as you have a fine cigar, and an equally nice Cadillac.


----------



## [email protected]

Americans are weird.

Theyre just like normal people, only louder and with more weapons.


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by dueceman455_
> 
> I have not posted a message on this interesting topic in a while, but I could not resist. To my Continental friends, the United States is not like Europe. This includes my friends in Great Britain. Our gun laws are different. However, as many folks say diversity in opinions are of the most importance, I implore you to see that with our firearms laws.
> To show such a biased view towards gun ownership, due to your own particular country of orgin's view of firearms is silly.
> To be honest, it reminds me of the BBC's poll back in 2004 if the world should have a "vote" in our presidential elections. Let's be honest, no other country would want "us" prodding in your business. Even though the United States has done that in the past. However, I feel that views towards the Americans use of firearms has some sort of sick twist with overseas viewers. While I can understand this, I feel it is not right.
> Regards once more,
> Dueceman
> 
> Life is excellent so long as you have a fine cigar, and an equally nice Cadillac.


dueceman, I don't understand your post. you seem to be suggesting that people who are not americans are letting the unfortunate circomstances of their birth cloud their judgment on gun control. is that about it? perhaps you may want to think about flipping that over for a second - would you have the same beliefs you have about gun control and gun ownership if you were not an American?


----------



## globetrotter

> quote:_Originally posted by [email protected]_
> 
> Americans are weird.
> 
> Theyre just like normal people, only louder and with more weapons.


[8D]


----------



## oktagon

jeansguy said:


> God Bless America..one of the last nations on earth to truly understand human rights.
> 
> Anywhoooooooo
> 
> I think a snub nosed .38 is the ultimate trad weapon. It's gotta be a wheelgun I think to be realy trad.
> 
> www.thegenuineman.com


God bless America indeed! Citezents of the police states (UK included) will never understand the God given freedom to keep and bear arms. Havinf lived in one of those regimes for 27 years makes me appreciate this right in the way others can not.

I prefer to carry Wilson CQB strong side belt with Smith 640 as a backup, or when the ocasion does not permit primary weapon carry I just carry Smith 640. 
I have over 170 firearms in my collection! All get shot regularly.

As for the people who like to qualify the individuals by their gormer military affiliation, I proudly served in Soviet Border Guard interception unit, so I know a thing or two about guns.


----------



## Karl89

Oktagon,

The PVO Strany didn't exactly do a great job in allowing Mathias Rust to land a Cessna in Red Square! 

Poka,

Karl


----------



## oktagon

Well, I was not in PVO, and if I was, he would not lend there. His body parts may be, but not the plane. This whole thing was a result of stupid old men who were afraid of their own shadows being in comand...butI degress. What does this whole thing have to do with firearms? Are you just trying to be smart? 

Spokojnoj nochi


----------



## ksinc

Was it Chuck Taylor or Clint Smith that says, "the purpose of a handgun is to fight your way to a rifle"?


----------



## oktagon

ksinc said:


> Was it Chuck Taylor or Clint Smith that says, "the purpose of a handgun is to fight your way to a rifle"?


That's exactly it. But in the current situation handgun is much more usefull, since you really can't conceal a rifle in bublic, although I used to do just fine with AKSU.


----------



## RSS

I always rather liked what former Texas governor, the late Ann Richards, said when asked if it were appropriate for a woman to carry a handgun/pistol in her purse ... "I don't know one woman in Texas who could even _find_ a gun in her purse."


----------



## 16412

As the Westerners say "the gun is the evener", which means you are equally as tough as the giant that wants to kill you (not the right to revenge).

Haveing a gun levels the playing field. When there are several thugs that want to kill you, and non of them want to die, then you will probably walk away without firing a shot (no gun and your dead). But, one super wacko among them will prove why you need a gun and "law enforcement" is useless. It takes less than 5 seconds to be killed. How long does it take law enforcement to get out of the donut shop?


----------



## Laxplayer

WA said:


> As the Westerners say "the gun is the evener", which means you are equally as tough as the giant that wants to kill you (not the right to revenge).
> 
> *Haveing a gun levels the playing field. When there are several thugs that want to kill you, and non of them want to die, then you will probably walk away without firing a shot (no gun and your dead). But, one super wacko among them will prove why you need a gun and "law enforcement" is useless.* *It takes less than 5 seconds to be killed.* *How long does it take law enforcement to get out of the donut shop?*


This is a ridiculous statement. I mean seriously, where are you running into gangs of gun-toting thugs? I live in the "Most Dangerous City in the U.S.", and I don't feel the need to arm myself. Everytime I see a report of a shooting on the news, it is a relative shooting another relative, lover's quarrel or another criminal that has been shot. If you don't fall into any of those categories, I think you are pretty safe.


----------



## 16412

Laxplayer said:


> This is a ridiculous statement. I mean seriously, where are you running into gangs of gun-toting thugs? I live in the "Most Dangerous City in the U.S.", and I don't feel the need to arm myself. Everytime I see a report of a shooting on the news, it is a relative shooting another relative, lover's quarrel or another criminal that has been shot. If you don't fall into any of those categories, I think you are pretty safe.


Your absolutely right, except for a few reasons out of the ordinary. If you ever have problems with Italian Mafia thugs you had better have a gun. Some that don't dislike me have told me to carry a gun. The other thugs have tried to get me on the freeway, in parks, at work, down streets and roads, even walking out to the mailbox.

I wondered if the western book writers were right, until my enemies asked if I had a gun- their reaction was very clear. And a gun keeps them out of the house. After all, they don't need a gun to kill you and they often don't, because there are thousands of ways to kill somebody. But you against two or more what chance do you have? It doesn't matter if your wimpy small or giant tough, because a gun deals with non of that- it gives you a more equal chance. One time while hiking I pulled off the trail to eat lunch; a couple guys came by talking, thug was telling the wanna be "Just sneak up behind him and shoot him in the back of the head". "There is nothing he can do then". Don't know who they wanted dead, but they didn't know I was beside the trail listening to them. How many times have I heard "You kill him, We kill you".

As far as "law enforcement" there is nothing like calling 911 to hear from their end "We don't care if they beat you up" or "We don't care if they kill you" or "We're not going to help you" or "Hang up". How about hearing all of that in one phone call for help? After all, when you are voteing for the Chief of Police, Sheriff, Prosecuter, Judges, or anybody else- do you know what you are voteing for?

And then before the wimpy mafia thugs (some are part of this forum) there were the two perverts that tried 5 times to get me when out hiking or running. These guys grab young males and take lots of pictures while rapeing. Sell the pictures for Money. Prostitue or sell the victim to somebody, like in Turkey, as a sex slave, or dig a big hole with a backhoe toss the person in and put dirt on. And then there were a couple of other guys I luckly got away from, when hitch-hiking.

Sometimes I think life would be fair if it was open season on thugs all year around.

In the end the only thing left for help is God Himself. Guns, rocket launchers, etc. just aren't good enough, but God is.


----------



## Laxplayer

WA said:


> Your absolutely right, except for a few reasons out of the ordinary. If you ever have problems with Italian Mafia thugs you had better have a gun. Some that don't dislike me have told me to carry a gun. The other thugs have tried to get me on the freeway, in parks, at work, down streets and roads, even walking out to the mailbox.
> 
> I wondered if the western book writers were right, until my enemies asked if I had a gun- their reaction was very clear. And a gun keeps them out of the house. After all, they don't need a gun to kill you and they often don't, because there are thousands of ways to kill somebody. But you against two or more what chance do you have? It doesn't matter if your wimpy small or giant tough, because a gun deals with non of that- it gives you a more equal chance. One time while hiking I pulled off the trail to eat lunch; a couple guys came by talking, thug was telling the wanna be "Just sneak up behind him and shoot him in the back of the head". "There is nothing he can do then". Don't know who they wanted dead, but they didn't know I was beside the trail listening to them. How many times have I heard "You kill him, We kill you".
> 
> As far as "law enforcement" there is nothing like calling 911 to hear from their end "We don't care if they beat you up" or "We don't care if they kill you" or "We're not going to help you" or "Hang up". How about hearing all of that in one phone call for help? After all, when you are voteing for the Chief of Police, Sheriff, Prosecuter, Judges, or anybody else- do you know what you are voteing for?
> 
> And then before the wimpy mafia thugs (some are part of this forum) there were the two perverts that tried 5 times to get me when out hiking or running. These guys grab young males and take lots of pictures while rapeing. Sell the pictures for Money. Prostitue or sell the victim to somebody, like in Turkey, as a sex slave, or dig a big hole with a backhoe toss the person in and put dirt on. And then there were a couple of other guys I luckly got away from, when hitch-hiking.
> 
> Sometimes I think life would be fair if it was open season on thugs all year around.
> 
> In the end the only thing left for help is God Himself. Guns, rocket launchers, etc. just aren't good enough, but God is.


 hmm, that is quite a story.


----------



## 16412

Laxplayer - they waste their time on me.

I used to read Name It Claim It books and the mafia is a perfect example of 'What You Fear Is What You Get. Their fears give them exactly what they don't want. Also, what they fear they hate- so murder. And revenge is a vice (vice is controllessness). Pushing vice's on people is a vice itself, and they don't know that. Because they are brainwashed they have all kinds of weekness's. A friend will never ask a friend to do something wrong. Do they have any friends? Not the people they think. There lifestyle has nothing I want.


----------



## ksinc

Was this the longest thread in AAAC history? And; was it resolved?


----------



## Wayfarer

ksinc said:


> Was this the longest thread in AAAC history? And; was it resolved?


Geez, 21 pages and I did not post in this thread. That has to be a record too!


----------



## globetrotter

ksinc said:


> Was this the longest thread in AAAC history? And; was it resolved?


please don't open this, I had a lot of free time last year, this year I am busy.


----------



## JLibourel

ksinc said:


> Was it Chuck Taylor or Clint Smith that says, "the purpose of a handgun is to fight your way to a rifle"?


Clint Smith. Clint seems to be fancying himself more and more as a sort of seishen (sp.?) of firearms with such gnomic aphorisms as, "Two is one, and one is none."

I never could quite savvy the "fight your way to a rifle." If you are in a military position being overrun by the enemy, it might make sense. If you are on the street, all you have is a handgun and your rifle is back in your gun safe, presumably you will make do with the weapon at hand, not even thinking about the one 15 miles away in a safe!


----------



## 127.72 MHz

[email protected] said:


> Americans are weird.
> 
> Theyre just like normal people, only louder and with more weapons.


Which is why so many people visit the United States and then wish to immigrate here,...

Bill
Portland, Oregon


----------



## Martinis at 8

I'm a former military officer. I carried the M1911A1 while in the service. When I got out of the Army I purchased the smaller and more compact Colt .380. It looks like, and breaks down just like the M1911A1. I also have a CCP, but then again, I live in Texas :icon_smile_wink: 

M8


----------



## ksinc

Martinis at 8 said:


> I'm a former military officer. I carried the M1911A1 while in the service. When I got out of the Army I purchased the smaller and more compact Colt .380. It looks like, and breaks down just like the M1911A1. I also have a CCP, but then again, I live in Texas :icon_smile_wink:
> 
> M8


Very nice! I have a .380 Pocketlite.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

I'm a bit surprised the Browing Hi Power has not been mentioned. Although this is not my pistol I have a Novak Hi Power exactly as the one pictured. (Besides several others, all but one are the preferred Belgian Hi Powers from FN/Herstal)

https://www.novaksights.com/images/GUNS/bhp/1%20of%20100%20white%20side.jpg

I own a 1911 Gold Cup and love it but to me the BHP is my go to pistol. Not a .45 but with the 9mm loads available today it's none the less very handy, all things considered, a real party stopper,...

Best wishes,

Bill
Portland, Oregon


----------



## Kav

Firearm threads always remind me of my first crush Sherie Lewis singing 'This is the song that never ends." But this is what keeps Jan in Allen Edmonds. Nice work, if you can get it.


----------



## JLibourel

C'mon, Kav, I'm trying to stay shoe-sober. I haven't bought any A-Es (or other shoes for that matter) for four months.

Maybe we should have 12-step support groups for those whose inner Imelda gets out of hand:

"Hello, I'm Jan Libourel, shoe-aholic."

Chorus: "Hi, Jan!"


----------



## Acct2000

Could you possibly buy a sandal to substitute when you feel the uncontrollable urge?


----------



## eyedoc2180

You gun guys more likely end up shooting dear mother-in-law over a burned pot roast, than actually protecting country, home, and family. As for the shoe thing (how did we get from guns to shoes?), I did the 12 step program, but yesterday I saw my first pair of AE Delrays live and in person. The new pair will arrive sometime next week. Bill


----------



## Acct2000

A burned pot roast would be upsetting.


----------



## ksinc

"The proliferation of "pocket 45s" has us somewhat bewildered. A pocket 45 is a good idea, but naturally it must be well-made and easy to use. We asked Jan Libourel, our colleague at Petersen's Handguns, for his recommendation and came to the conclusion that a straight forward Colt Commander still has much to recommend it, especially in the version with the shortened butt. All sorts of service nines are being offered, especially in Europe, but they are still nines. Using a 9mm pistol for self-defense is much like using a 375 on buffalo. Most of the time it will do - most of the time."

Jeff Cooper's Commentaries
Vol. 6, No. 8 
20 July, 1998
https://www.dvc.org.uk/jeff/jeff6_8.html


----------



## yachtie

127.72 MHz said:


> I'm a bit surprised the Browing Hi Power has not been mentioned. Although this is not my pistol I have a Novak Hi Power exactly as the one pictured. (Besides several others, all but one are the preferred Belgian Hi Powers from FN/Herstal)
> 
> https://www.novaksights.com/images/GUNS/bhp/1%20of%20100%20white%20side.jpg
> 
> I own a 1911 Gold Cup and love it but to me the BHP is my go to pistol. Not a .45 but with the 9mm loads available today it's none the less very handy, all things considered, a real party stopper,...
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Bill
> Portland, Oregon


Very nice gun, Bill. I have my Dad's BHP; and , for a little authority, an IMI Desert Eagle in .44 mag.- although it's a good shooter, it's a lot to carry around.


----------



## JLibourel

ksinc said:


> "The proliferation of "pocket 45s" has us somewhat bewildered. A pocket 45 is a good idea, but naturally it must be well-made and easy to use. We asked Jan Libourel, our colleague at Petersen's Handguns, for his recommendation and came to the conclusion that a straight forward Colt Commander still has much to recommend it, especially in the version with the shortened butt. All sorts of service nines are being offered, especially in Europe, but they are still nines. Using a 9mm pistol for self-defense is much like using a 375 on buffalo. Most of the time it will do - most of the time."
> 
> Jeff Cooper's Commentaries
> Vol. 6, No. 8
> 20 July, 1998
> https://www.dvc.org.uk/jeff/jeff6_8.html


Please let it be known that I have been gone from Petersen's Handguns for well over 8 years years now. I am presently the editor of Gun World. My own view on "pocket .45s" is that there are a number of good guns with 3 1/2-inch barrels, but I really don't trust anything with a barrel shorter than that. They may work, but they are always skating on the edge of reliability, IMO. The best that can be hoped for with any defensive pistol cartridge is that it will most of the time. Among the popular service auto pistol cartridges (9mmP and up), there is so much overlap depending on the load selected that I do not have a strong preference. To equal the better .45 ACP and .40 S&W loads, the 9mm needs a hot +P or +P+ treatment, which has its drawbacks--possible compromised reliability, shorter gun life. The hotter .40 S&W loads and the .357 SIG have a reputation for being "gun eaters," as well. On balance, I like the .45 ACP the best, although not because I feel it is a significantly better stopper than the others.


----------



## Kav

I once met a norwegian merchant mariner. He was skippering a small freighter in the Mediterannean and found himself with a mutinous crew intent on stealing the cargo and ship. They were a mixed lot of pakistani's and libyans led by a corsican, all armed with P-38 Walthers and egyptian service issue Berettas. the Captain had, and let me shoot his personal sidearm, a 5 screw K- 32! Barricaded on the bridge he placed one shot through the corsican's left eye, ending the mutiny. He even produced the old french newspaper account of the incident. I belong to the 55 gallon drum sized bullet camp, but that story impressed on me nothing is so good as placement!


----------



## Martinis at 8

Kav said:


> I once met a norwegian merchant mariner. He was skippering a small freighter in the Mediterannean and found himself with a mutinous crew intent on stealing the cargo and ship. They were a mixed lot of pakistani's and libyans led by a corsican, all armed with P-38 Walthers and egyptian service issue Berettas. the Captain had, and let me shoot his personal sidearm, a 5 screw K- 32! Barricaded on the bridge he placed one shot through the corsican's left eye, ending the mutiny. He even produced the old french newspaper account of the incident. I belong to the 55 gallon drum sized bullet camp, but that story impressed on me nothing is so good as placement!


Great story!


----------



## ksinc

JLibourel said:


> Please let it be known that I have been gone from Petersen's Handguns for well over 8 years years now. I am presently the editor of Gun World. My own view on "pocket .45s" is that there are a number of good guns with 3 1/2-inch barrels, but I really don't trust anything with a barrel shorter than that. They may work, but they are always skating on the edge of reliability, IMO. The best that can be hoped for with any defensive pistol cartridge is that it will most of the time. Among the popular service auto pistol cartridges (9mmP and up), there is so much overlap depending on the load selected that I do not have a strong preference. To equal the better .45 ACP and .40 S&W loads, the 9mm needs a hot +P or +P+ treatment, which has its drawbacks--possible compromised reliability, shorter gun life. The hotter .40 S&W loads and the .357 SIG have a reputation for being "gun eaters," as well. On balance, I like the .45 ACP the best, although not because I feel it is a significantly better stopper than the others.


Duly noted, Mr. L. I hope the dated material didn't bother you.

I have 3 Commanders (one is a customized Combat 'nightstand queen', two are LWT XSEs for carry). I often just carry the Pony Pocketlite.

I didn't know the 3.5" was a good peformer in .45 ACP. I had always heard the 4.25" barrel was chosen because testing showed a drop off in performance in the .45 ACP at 4". However, I noticed when Springfield came out with their 'commander' length Champion it had a 4" barrel, not 4.25". As does the new XD-45 they make.

Is the 4" drop off was just urban legend? Or; do you recommend to shoot the 200gr +P rounds in them and not the std. 230gr ball?


----------



## JLibourel

The difference in velocity drop-off for hardball between a 3.5-inch and 5-inch barreled .45 ACP is about 60 fps. There is a loss of stopping effectiveness from the shorter barrels, but it is not great.

About 20 years ago I tested a whole slew of 9mmP and .38 Super ammo from 4.25-inch and 5-inch barreled pistols. The average velocity loss for the .75-inch of barrel was 30 to 40 fps, and these were high-intensity loads where one might expect velocity loss to be greater. A quarter-inch of barrel length is not going to make much difference in the scheme of things. I think a lot of the old-time authorities set way too much store on minor differences in barrel length.

The use of +P can often compromise reliability of an otherwise reliable pistol and will make the smaller guns, in particular, harder to control. However, I would most emphatically prefer any hollowpoint that cycled reliably in my pistol to hardball.


----------



## Kav

Butch Cassidy prefered 7 1/2" cavalrys. He explained to a fellow expatriate american in Bolivia the barrel length was handier to smack uncooperative blank clerks with than shooting them. I took this to heart with my Colt New Service target, the one firearm who loss through theft I still mourn :-(


----------



## 127.72 MHz

JLibourel said:


> Please let it be known that I have been gone from Petersen's Handguns for well over 8 years years now. I am presently the editor of Gun World. My own view on "pocket .45s" is that there are a number of good guns with 3 1/2-inch barrels, but I really don't trust anything with a barrel shorter than that. They may work, but they are always skating on the edge of reliability, IMO. The best that can be hoped for with any defensive pistol cartridge is that it will most of the time. Among the popular service auto pistol cartridges (9mmP and up), there is so much overlap depending on the load selected that I do not have a strong preference. To equal the better .45 ACP and .40 S&W loads, the 9mm needs a hot +P or +P+ treatment, which has its drawbacks--possible compromised reliability, shorter gun life. The hotter .40 S&W loads and the .357 SIG have a reputation for being "gun eaters," as well. On balance, I like the .45 ACP the best, although not because I feel it is a significantly better stopper than the others.


I completely appreciate your knowledge and point of view. That being said I've been involved in the shooting sports since I was five years old, so that makes forty years. Being a science major in college I also appreciate the scientific aspects of the shooting sports, end of muzzle to point of impact, trajectories, etc. But there is a crowd in the gun world which I call the "Ballistic gelatin crowd." No doubt stopping power is at the top of my list when it comes to personal protection, but stopping power as it relates to statistics that have come from the "en vetro" (ballistic gelatin crowd) do not take into account "en vivo" (real world) stopping power.

This real world stopping power came to me when I was about eight years old and we were out shooting our .22's into gallon plastic milk jugs filled with water. One of my buddies had some of the new .22 "Stinger" rounds and he shot one from about ten feet into one of the water filled milk jugs. For those not involved in the shooting sports one of these little .22 "Stinger" round will literally make the milk jug of water explode. The only thing left will be some shredded plastic. I knew right then that there was MUCH more to this whole stopping power thing than the ballistic gelatin crowd's figures.

So I will make this blanket statement: No matter who you are or who you think you are, no one, and I mean no one could take one of those little .22 stinger rounds to the face at ten feet or under and continue an attack on another individual. That is real world stopping power. Does this mean I will carry a .22 for personal protection. Not on my life. But I don't believe many people who read the gun magazines take into account the results of a .38, .380, or a 9mm round shot into another individual at ten feet or under. I have seen the results.

As I stated I own a 1911 Gold Cup as well as a Glock 21 so I enjoy the .45 round. But with the rounds available today many other calibers will do just fine in terms of personal protection. Depending on the situation, (where I'm going and what I'm wearing) I will even carry a .380. I shoot every week and I believe everyone involved with the shooting sports should shoot different rounds out of doors into objects where the results can be seen for your own real world stopping power tests.

I'm happy to see so many people who believe their lives are worth defending.

Bill
Portland, Oregon


----------



## ksinc

127.72 MHz said:


> So I will make this blanket statement: No matter who you are or who you think you are, no one, and I mean no one could take one of those little .22 stinger rounds to the face at ten feet or under and continue an attack on another individual. That is real world stopping power.


In the real world, who do you know that can draw and make a head shot on an advancing man at 10 feet - other than Rob Leathem and Jerry Miculek?

This is why knives are more dangerous than guns outside of field combat ranges. At ten feet, I think I could make 99% of the IPSC finalists eat my Benchmade Reflex before they clear leather or at least get a sight picture. YMMV, but not enough to make a headshot.

I can fire two to the chest and one to the head too ... at seven yards on paper. 

For example, these are non-moving, non-attacking targets at 12-15 yards
https://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_150_25/ai_67886010

I don't really understand your post. You start out seemingly anti-ballistics and then your argument seems to hang on bullet performance on a perfect shot. Which seems more 'en vetro' than 'en vivo' to me.

I don't disagree per se, I often carry a .380, but the rest of your post just doesn't seem relevant or practical. I personally do not like the 9mm. I find it a poor shooter - too snappy - in my hands compared to the 45 auto. My preference has nothing to do with ballistics, it's more platform and package. However, I will admit I never understood the logic behind the BHP either. If I'm packing a full-size, SA auto, why not a 45?

Still, it is certainly good that we can own whichever we like, discuss them, and use them if needed. I agree 100% on that! Cheers!


----------



## Wimsey

I think that Bill does have a point that if you read articles about stopping power, you are sometimes left with the idea that using a .32 is akin to snapping a towel at someone - which is of course wildly inaccurate.

For civilians interested in a handgun for self-defense, it is my personal opinion that a .32 or a 9mm is *completely* adequate. The vast majority of defensive uses of handguns don't even require that the gun be fired; showing it is enough. In all the other cases I've read about, the homeowner (typically) got the drop on the burglar (again, typically) and was able to shoot him (always) repeatedly (typically) without the burglar being able to draw a weapon, or, in many cases, even knowing that the homeowner was there. 

The police have different needs of course.

And of course the homeowner should use whatever he feels most comfortable with (although, ideally, with hollowpoint, so that the bullet doesn't travel through the criminal, through your wall, through your neighbor's wall, and into your neighbor).


----------



## 16412

I see colt 45's being mentioned here. 

What are your thoughts of S&W 45's?


----------



## PennGlock

WA said:


> I see colt 45's being mentioned here.
> 
> What are your thoughts of S&W 45's?


The trigger on that gun is terrible, WA, one of the worst Ive felt on any gun. Heavy, long, and squishy.

S&W's new 1911s are the cat's ass, though.


----------



## 18677

*.*



127.72 MHz said:


> One of my buddies had some of the new .22 "Stinger" rounds and he shot one from about ten feet into one of the water filled milk jugs. For those not involved in the shooting sports one of these little .22 "Stinger" round will literally make the milk jug of water explode. The only thing left will be some shredded plastic. I knew right then that there was MUCH more to this whole stopping power thing than the ballistic gelatin crowd's figures.


A high speed bullet creates a larger temporary cavity. It is like throwing a rock into the water vs. dropping it in. The thrown rock makes a large hole in the water for a moment. The faster the bullet, the larger the temporary cavity will be. In the case of the plastic jug, it has very little elastomer qualities. The cavity created by the fast bullet is larger than the milk jug. The plastic won't give much therefore it explodes. Flesh on the other hand does expand. All this to say......milk jugs don't respond like people. Humans don't explode from handgun ammunition.

Years ago there was a school of thought that these temporary cavities were the cats meow in stopping power. People chased after it for a while. Then better research revealed this as a flawed theory and that sacrificing weight for speed actually was less effective in stopping power.

If you are interested, one of Jlibourel's colleagues Evan Marshall has written much on the subject. Also research and articles by Dr. Martin Fackler are very informative on the subject.


----------



## ksinc

Wimsey said:


> I think that Bill does have a point that if you read articles about stopping power, you are sometimes left with the idea that using a .32 is akin to snapping a towel at someone - which is of course wildly inaccurate.
> 
> For civilians interested in a handgun for self-defense, it is my personal opinion that a .32 or a 9mm is *completely* adequate. The vast majority of defensive uses of handguns don't even require that the gun be fired; showing it is enough. In all the other cases I've read about, the homeowner (typically) got the drop on the burglar (again, typically) and was able to shoot him (always) repeatedly (typically) without the burglar being able to draw a weapon, or, in many cases, even knowing that the homeowner was there.
> 
> The police have different needs of course.
> 
> And of course the homeowner should use whatever he feels most comfortable with (although, ideally, with hollowpoint, so that the bullet doesn't travel through the criminal, through your wall, through your neighbor's wall, and into your neighbor).


I see. I never read that snapping a towel thing and certainly didn't see a post like that here in this thread. I had no idea what he was trying to say. Thanks.

In my state, Florida, showing a gun is called brandishing and punishable by imprisonment. The only legal reason to draw a gun is to fire it, not to show it. Your state may be different, but you lose your CCW if you do not keep your weapon 100% concealed unless you have cause to use force. In which case, you better use it or you really didn't have cause.

Unless you are a law enforcement officer you are not authorized to "draw down" on someone and "take them at gun point". You are only authorized to use justified force, and until you are it is extremely illegal to show a gun. YMMV, but that's how the law works here. If you have the opportunity that you are not really in imminent danger of death requiring you to use lethal force ... you are supposed to run away and call 911.

Regardless of Florida's reputation as "Dodge City", we really don't allow 'John Waynes' here and I personally consider the attitude of 'waving a gun around' or 'threatening someone with a gun' to be a major problem with gun ownership rights - it's a losing argument. All the issues of who escalated, liability, and bystanders, etc. come into play.

The first thing you learn in gun safety is "every gun is loaded, don't point it at something you don't intend to kill." It's totally contradictory to then teach "sometimes showing or pointing a gun at a criminal is enough to stop them." In my CCW course, I was taught no one should know you have a gun, until they hear you fire it. YMMV, but they had very good legal justification for that proposition.

I've yet to hear of a practical shooting course for civilians that teaches how to "draw and show". Cops do that sort of thing and unfortunately they have a high propensity to get killed or sued when doing so. We seem to have a situation fairly regularly here where cops draw on someone in a car and the guy tries to drive off and they shoot him. Then they try to claim the suspect tried to run them over with the car. I think it's happened twice in the last year that the cops shot someone driving 'away' in a car. The cops get in a lot of trouble, but they don't get life in prison as you or I would if we pulled the same 'stunt'.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

ksinc said:


> In the real world, who do you know that can draw and make a head shot on an advancing man at 10 feet - other than Rob Leathem and Jerry Miculek?
> 
> This is why knives are more dangerous than guns outside of field combat ranges. At ten feet, I think I could make 99% of the IPSC finalists eat my Benchmade Reflex before they clear leather or at least get a sight picture. YMMV, but not enough to make a headshot.
> 
> I can fire two to the chest and one to the head too ... at seven yards on paper.
> 
> For example, these are non-moving, non-attacking targets at 12-15 yards
> https://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_150_25/ai_67886010
> 
> I don't really understand your post. You start out seemingly anti-ballistics and then your argument seems to hang on bullet performance on a perfect shot. Which seems more 'en vetro' than 'en vivo' to me.
> 
> I don't disagree per se, I often carry a .380, but the rest of your post just doesn't seem relevant or practical. I personally do not like the 9mm. I find it a poor shooter - too snappy - in my hands compared to the 45 auto. My preference has nothing to do with ballistics, it's more platform and package. However, I will admit I never understood the logic behind the BHP either. If I'm packing a full-size, SA auto, why not a 45?
> 
> Still, it is certainly good that we can own whichever we like, discuss them, and use them if needed. I agree 100% on that! Cheers!


Great example of a quote being taken out of context. You quote my post and then don't include the very next sentence! Which says: "Does this mean I will use a.22 for personal protection? Not on my life."

So I had not taken the position that one should carry a .22 and rely on a perfect shot and my post is still there in black and white to clearly show it.

To clarify, use whichever source you choose in terms of the distance the vast majority of personal attacks occur from. It is at very short range, that's all,...

As a certified firearms instructor I teach if one is not willing to become familar with a given firearm and continue to be familar with that firearm one has no business packing the said firearm for personal protection.

If you can put "Two to the chest and one to the head" on paper at seven yards and you shoot on a regular basis it is my belief that in the event of an attack, given that you are aware of your surroundings, you would stop an attacker. I think you would stop the attacker regardless of what, (within reason) you are shooting.

Did I advocate a BHP exclusively for personal protection? No. I shot a custom Hi Power when I was about ten years old and said to myself: "One day I will have one like that." (So I do) I have put literally thousands of rounds through several Hi Powers I own so it is fair to say I'm very near my best with them.

I do carry a Glock 19 (little ol' 9mm) and I'm fairly handy with it. Also a Walther PPK, on occasion a Colt Gold Cup, and yes even my trusty BHP.

So to restate my point, with the loads currently available I do not believe one is compromising their personal safety by carrying a firearm smaller than a .45.

This thread has been very interesting to see the attitudes that those from other countrys have about Americans. I have traveled on business to thirteen countrys and have lived for nine months in Japan, nine months in central Europe, and nine months in the U.K.. There are so many wonderful things to learn about other cultures, I also thank God I was born in the United States.

Regards,
Bill
Portland, Oregon


----------



## Kav

Ballistics is a science that if taught, would have offices next to philosophy and statistics. People have been killed with .22 shorts. There are people who took multiple hits from .45s and still killed their opponent. Adrenalin, heavy clothing, drug use, individual metabolisms and just plain oneryness are just a few real world factors that can, and have negated everything we know,write and argue about. I can think of at least 3 medical cases where males suffered not mere bullets, but solid iron rods penetrating their craniums and punching through in industrial and construction accidents. They not only lived, but maintained consciousness and fully recovered. I tell people who ask me to get a quality revolver in the most potent package they are comfortable and competent with and get training. For most people, that package is often a plain vanilla .38 special to the hand wringing and wails of approbation by pistoleros.


----------



## ksinc

I certainly agree 100% that whatever platform a person is comfortable, competent, and most familiar with - will serve them best in a stressful situation.


----------



## globetrotter

I have seen a number of people shot. as far as I can remember, all with .30, .223 or 9mm ammo (not counting some hit with shells, but thats a different story). they all did the same thing - they stopped what they were doing. and then most of them died. none of them took a round and kept on trying to fight.


----------



## ksinc

Interesting comment because there is a steady drumbeat that 9mm ball is a terrible round in terms of stopping power and there are many accounts/stories of wounded combatants continuing to fight after being shot with Beretta M9s. Not having been in combat or the service, I certainly couldn't dismiss these accounts as legend/myth, but perhaps others will/can.

While I agree that in civilian applications the wide menu of JHP ammunition may negate that, I'm not sure what to think in a military situation where ball is mandated. I don't think it can all be attributed to the Beretta accuracy. Particularly, considering the way the .45 was introduced as a solution to a problem with .38 stopping power. 

Isn't it a strange coincidence that the Moros were also islamic fanatics? 

I do know the Hatcher #s show 9mm FMJ is a 32 and 45 FMJ is a 49. 

Some units like the Marine Expeditionary Unit are already issuing .45s again because of their combat experience in Afghanistan.


----------



## Kav

The .45 cartridge's military criteria had nothing to do with shooting people. It was required to 'founder a horse.' The Army had the short .45 230 grain as used in Scofileds and the 255 grain Colt long. The army round was the short for both until the Scofield's withdrawal from service. That is why the .45 ACP settled on that wieght. And what people forget is the legendary Moros took .30-40 Krag hits and kept fighting too. All I know is my own experience. I took a AK round in my thigh, albiet after it richocheted off a bulkhead and keyholed into me. I didn't lay down and die. I took out my shooters with a 1911. The 5.56 was intended to tumble, much like the .303 and therefore increase it's effectiveness. This is all needlessly grim. Back to the first post in this thread: A gentleman with the means to procure a weapon can, and should also match said funds and volunteer work to worthy social efforts. In a world with @ 3 smallarms for every man,woman and child, born by many of those children scarcely as tall as their weapons, to do less is morally corrupt.


----------



## JLibourel

Anent the Moros, after the Army started issuing .45s again with the M1909 Colt, there were still lots of failures on the Moros--soldiers emptying their .45 revolvers into Moros, with the latter pressing their attacks unfazed.


----------



## Liberty Ship

Nantucket Red said:


> I think the 1911 would be high on the list of trad handguns.
> 
> -------------------------------------------------
> God gave us women; the Devil gave them corsets.
> - French proverb


Actually, I think that the Colt .32 Pocket Auto, 1903 is the most tradly of all:


----------



## JLibourel

The Colt 1903 would be right up there among Trad handguns, but I think no more so than any appropriate pre-WWII Colt or Smith & Wesson revolver.

As to the Hatcher formula mentioned in an earlier post, it is unfortunate that General Hatcher, who was a fine researcher and--those who knew him have told me--a real gentleman of the old school, should be remembered for the least scientific, most inaccurate of his endeavors, which he offered as little more than an educated guess. His formula applied to projectiles other than bullets becomes ridiculous. I once calculated that according to the Hatcher formula, a three-pound rock three inches in diameter lobbed at 50 fps would be about 44 times more effective than a .458 Winchester Magnum! Evan Marshall's statistical findings based on actual shootings and the Strasbourg Goat Tests also do not jibe with Hatcher's formula at all.

Based on my long study of such matters, I have concluded the two most important factors in cartridge effectiveness are bullet design/construction and kinetic energy. Bullet weight and diameter do play some role, but not nearly as much as many have supposed.


----------



## Martinis at 8

JLibourel said:


> The Colt 1903 would be right up there among Trad handguns, but I think no more so than any appropriate pre-WWII Colt or Smith & Wesson revolver.
> 
> As to the Hatcher formula mentioned in an earlier post, it is unfortunate that General Hatcher, who was a fine researcher and--those who knew him have told me--a real gentleman of the old school, should be remembered for the least scientific, most inaccurate of his endeavors, which he offered as little more than an educated guess. His formula applied to projectiles other than bullets becomes ridiculous. I once calculated that according to the Hatcher formula, a three-pound rock three inches in diameter lobbed at 50 fps would be about 44 times more effective than a .458 Winchester Magnum! Evan Marshall's statistical findings based on actual shootings and the Strasbourg Goat Tests also do not jibe with Hatcher's formula at all.
> 
> Based on my long study of such matters, I have concluded the two most important factors in cartridge effectiveness are bullet design/construction and kinetic energy. Bullet weight and diameter do play some role, but not nearly as much as many have supposed.


Okay, this post and your latest about the tall wife are why you are my favorite AAAC guru :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc

JLibourel said:


> The Colt 1903 would be right up there among Trad handguns, but I think no more so than any appropriate pre-WWII Colt or Smith & Wesson revolver.
> 
> As to the Hatcher formula mentioned in an earlier post, it is unfortunate that General Hatcher, who was a fine researcher and--those who knew him have told me--a real gentleman of the old school, should be remembered for the least scientific, most inaccurate of his endeavors, which he offered as little more than an educated guess. His formula applied to projectiles other than bullets becomes ridiculous. I once calculated that according to the Hatcher formula, a three-pound rock three inches in diameter lobbed at 50 fps would be about 44 times more effective than a .458 Winchester Magnum! Evan Marshall's statistical findings based on actual shootings and the Strasbourg Goat Tests also do not jibe with Hatcher's formula at all.
> 
> Based on my long study of such matters, I have concluded the two most important factors in cartridge effectiveness are bullet design/construction and kinetic energy. Bullet weight and diameter do play some role, but not nearly as much as many have supposed.


Mr. L,

As a casual observer, I always thought the difference between Hatcher #s and Marshall was a semantical argument between "stopping power" vs. "knockdown power".

I always thought Hatcher would be better served by divorcing the term and that his 'knockdown power #s' accounted for bullet construction and he gave JHP their due:
45 ACP full metal jacket 230 grain .......... 49.1
45 ACP jacketed hollow point 230 grain ... 60.7

9 millimeter full metal jacket 147 grain .......... 32.3
9 millimeter jacketed hollow point 147 grain ... 39.9

If KE=1/2MV2 or WV2 and BC=SD/I where SD=M/D2, surely diameter and weight (and velocity) are vital players determining the potential of kinetic energy and bullet design/construction.

Hatcher doesn't account for bullet placement or terminal accuracy which would be a component in 'stopping power' as measured by Marshall. I seem to remember having heard some of Marshall's early data was viewed as suspect or biased since it was thought the detectives and UC cops were better shooters on average and used revolvers, etc. etc.

A 3 pound rock at 50fps would have some serious knockdown if no stopping power, wouldn't it?

I agree that it is truly an honor to converse with you and you are my favorite as well.


----------



## JLibourel

I am not even sure Hatcher factored in hollow points when he drafted his formula. They were all but unknown in handgun calibers when he was active. I think that his latter-day followers added in the factor for hollow points, but I could be wrong about this.

The fact is, no handgun bullet has any knockdown power worth mentioning. I can recall attending one handgun silhouette match. The rams took hits from some pretty powerful handguns and often wobbled but stayed in place. A gust of wind--20 mph or so--hit them, and they went down in windrows. 

Ditto in an extended table bowling pin match. It takes quite a bit of power and momentum to knock the pins off the table, yet any child with a lusty shove can drive the pins off.

Thanks for the kind words, gentlemen, but I can't imagine communicating with me to be much of an "honor." The pleasure is all mine!


----------



## ksinc

JLibourel said:


> I am not even sure Hatcher factored in hollow points when he drafted his formula. They were all but unknown in handgun calibers when he was active. I think that his latter-day followers added in the factor for hollow points, but I could be wrong about this.
> 
> The fact is, no handgun bullet has any knockdown power worth mentioning. I can recall attending one handgun silhouette match. The rams took hits from some pretty powerful handguns and often wobbled but stayed in place. A gust of wind--20 mph or so--hit them, and they went down in windrows.
> 
> Ditto in an extended table bowling pin match. It takes quite a bit of power and momentum to knock the pins off the table, yet any child with a lusty shove can drive the pins off.
> 
> Thanks for the kind words, gentlemen, but I can't imagine communicating with me to be much of an "honor." The pleasure is all mine!


Wow that's interesting. I never even considered that Hatcher #s were not entirely his own work left undisturbed.

Ok, you have convinced me to give up on my dream of finding a Swenson 1911 someday and I have to buy a Linebaugh custom now! j/k 

Cheers!


----------



## LSeca

I just wanted to share a pic of my very trad-like (except for it being stainless) Colt 1911. :icon_smile:

John Harrison did the work.


----------



## JLibourel

Looks like a perfectly nice contemporary "custom carry" 1911, but I fail to see anything particularly trad-like about it.

Now, if you were using a straight, unmodified M1911 that your grandfather or great-grandfather had carried in WWI, that would be Trad!


----------



## ksinc

LSeca said:


> I just wanted to share a pic of my very trad-like (except for it being stainless) Colt 1911. :icon_smile:
> 
> John Harrison did the work.


Very, very nice pistol!

I also have a Colt Series-80 and I have to agree while excellent carry guns, they are not Trad 1911s. The Series-80 generally gets no respect from the most hardcore 1911 nuts.

I still love mine. I have a blued Combat Commander dressed in Wilson 'tulipwood' checkered grips. It's a beautiful gun.

I also like the hex grip screws, but they are verboten-1911-Trad! 

Cheers!


----------



## Hombrerana

While I am not put off (like some earlier posters) by the discussion of firearms on this forumn, I am somewhat disappointed by what I perceive as a lack of maturity demonstrated by some of these postings.

A pistol is not a fashion accessory. A pistol, like a hammer, is a tool, one made for poking holes in bad guys. While there are sporting applications for pistols, most translate back to the primary purpose of combat. Most anyone who has carried one professionally and attained a respectable level of proficiency (sadly, this is a relatively small percentage of those carrying) will attest to the fact that if you can shoot, it doesn't really matter what you are shooting, as sight alignment and trigger control are transferable to anything you are going to shoot. Go to any commercial range and the sight is the same - all the "gun queers" in their black pajamas producing never ending supplies of exotic pistols out of their range bags then proceeding to shoot none of them well.
While I am an ardent believer in gun rights, and a shooting enthusiast (I hunt, hand load for my rifles, and have been carrying a gun for a living for all of my adult life), I must say that carrying any kind off firearm as a fashion statement doesn't make you a gentleman; indeed, it makes you an immature poser.


----------



## ksinc

Hombrerana said:


> While I am not put off (like some earlier posters) by the discussion of firearms on this forumn, I am somewhat disappointed by what I perceive as a lack of maturity demonstrated by some of these postings.
> 
> A pistol is not a fashion accessory. A pistol, like a hammer, is a tool, one made for poking holes in bad guys. While there are sporting applications for pistols, most translate back to the primary purpose of combat. Most anyone who has carried one professionally and attained a respectable level of proficiency (sadly, this is a relatively small percentage of those carrying) will attest to the fact that if you can shoot, it doesn't really matter what you are shooting, as sight alignment and trigger control are transferable to anything you are going to shoot. Go to any commercial range and the sight is the same - all the "gun queers" in their black pajamas producing never ending supplies of exotic pistols out of their range bags then proceeding to shoot none of them well.
> While I am an ardent believer in gun rights, and a shooting enthusiast (I hunt, hand load for my rifles, and have been carrying a gun for a living for all of my adult life), I must say that carrying any kind off firearm as a fashion statement doesn't make you a gentleman; indeed, it makes you an immature poser.


Oh, really?

https://www.sixguns.com/bunkhouse/fancy.htm

Your post also seems to fly in the face of your own sig quote "Anything worth doing is worth overdoing; moderation is for cowards." Strange coincidence coming from someone using the words "queer" and "poser" derogatively, 'Hombre'...! 

I have been to a lot of commercial and private ranges in my humble life. While it's true, I've seen a lot of people wearing camo and jump boots for no good reason ... I have NEVER seen someone in black pajamas.


----------



## globetrotter

Hombrerana said:


> While I am not put off (like some earlier posters) by the discussion of firearms on this forumn, I am somewhat disappointed by what I perceive as a lack of maturity demonstrated by some of these postings.
> 
> A pistol is not a fashion accessory. A pistol, like a hammer, is a tool, one made for poking holes in bad guys. While there are sporting applications for pistols, most translate back to the primary purpose of combat. Most anyone who has carried one professionally and attained a respectable level of proficiency (sadly, this is a relatively small percentage of those carrying) will attest to the fact that if you can shoot, it doesn't really matter what you are shooting, as sight alignment and trigger control are transferable to anything you are going to shoot. Go to any commercial range and the sight is the same - all the "gun queers" in their black pajamas producing never ending supplies of exotic pistols out of their range bags then proceeding to shoot none of them well.
> While I am an ardent believer in gun rights, and a shooting enthusiast (I hunt, hand load for my rifles, and have been carrying a gun for a living for all of my adult life), I must say that carrying any kind off firearm as a fashion statement doesn't make you a gentleman; indeed, it makes you an immature poser.


thank you. excellent post


----------



## globetrotter

ksinc said:


> Oh, really?
> 
> https://www.sixguns.com/bunkhouse/fancy.htm
> 
> .


K,

sorry - using patton, teddy roosevelt and john wayne as examples of fighting men to be held as examples doens't cut it in my book.


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> K,
> 
> sorry - using patton, teddy roosevelt and john wayne as examples of fighting men to be held as examples doens't cut it in my book.


So ... you have no idea who Jim Wilson, Skeeter Skelton, Bill Jordan, and Elmer Keith are? Interesting.

The fact is, even working firearms have been highly customized as personal statements - objects of both strength and beauty - for gentleman and Kings since their first introduction. Your self-lauded experience as a "professional" not withstanding, you clearly have no historical awareness of what you are talking about. In point of fact, it is only the gentleman's gun - not issued, service-guns - that have these accoutrements as a fashion of their station in life.

This can even be seen in something as innocuous as Gen. McArthur's custom khaki uniforms.

If you have something to say about firearm responsibility, fine. I agree I have seen some things at public ranges that are abhorent and some percentage of owners are somewhat scary. However, I haven't seen any gentleman promoting un-safe gun habits in this thread. And; to state there is a correlation between customized or personalized firearms and such attitudes is 'crap' and easily debunked. I've seen much more bad gun-handling habits from Cops with service pistols and regular people with surplus SKSs, than I have gentleman with pearl handled Colts.

I once had an off-duty Orlando Police Officer (which is supposed to be one of the best trained, most professional PD's in the country) ask to shoot my 45 auto. He was a range regular and said he was familar with it's operation and so I figured he must be a "competent professional who was paid to carry a gun" (like yourself). Then I watched as he tried to use the non-existant "de-cocking lever" and almost shot himself! He was actually looking at me not the gun, his head turned 90* to the left, when the gun went off. So much for "paid professionals".

And; I've never seen anyone in black pajamas except in a movie! LOL That's just hilariously funny. I do think there is a point to some degree about the people that 'dress up' to go shoot guns or go to a gun show. That has been discussed before here and I don't think anyone defended it.


----------



## globetrotter

ksinc said:


> So ... you have no idea who Jim Wilson, Skeeter Skelton, Bill Jordan, and Elmer Keith are? Interesting.


well, I have a pretty good Idea who Jim Wilson is. the others, I have no idea. I don't, actually, spend much time or energy reading about people in the "gun world".

if you took the guys who were at my wedding, you would probrably have 200-300 firefights represented. one of the guys who stood up with me was in 12 firefights with hizballah. I can pretty much guarantee that he has never touched a gun magazine. he is a chubby CPA with 3 kids. now, if I were to choose if I wanted a cowboy with a gold pistol at my side, or a grunt who has stared into an ak-47 from 3 meters and kept firing - I have no doubt who I would choose.

I don't know humbrerana, but I agree with what he says. I have said similar in the past - I have been a gunman, I know a lot of gunmen, I don't know any of them who have fancy guns. and, frankly, the ones I know are not what you would call "gun people". but, when the US military wanted to develop new tactics for urban warfare before iraq, they went to study from people who are a lot like me, they didn't go to texas to study with the gold and ivory revolver set.


----------



## globetrotter

ksinc said:


> you clearly have no historical awareness of what you are talking about. .


if I were to think about a historical warrior that I hold near and dear I would think about Sherman - probrably the best general the US has had. didn't own a revolver, let alone a saber. he wore a single steel spur, because one did the job, he didn't need two.

Lee was handsome, well dressed, a gentleman. if I were sending my son to war, I would much rather he be led by sherman.


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> well, I have a pretty good Idea who Jim Wilson is. the others, I have no idea. I don't, actually, spend much time or energy reading about people in the "gun world".
> 
> if you took the guys who were at my wedding, you would probrably have 200-300 firefights represented. one of the guys who stood up with me was in 12 firefights with hizballah. I can pretty much guarantee that he has never touched a gun magazine. he is a chubby CPA with 3 kids. now, if I were to choose if I wanted a cowboy with a gold pistol at my side, or a grunt who has stared into an ak-47 from 3 meters and kept firing - I have no doubt who I would choose.
> 
> I don't know humbrerana, but I agree with what he says. I have said similar in the past - I have been a gunman, I know a lot of gunmen, I don't know any of them who have fancy guns. and, frankly, the ones I know are not what you would call "gun people". but, when the US military wanted to develop new tactics for urban warfare before iraq, they went to study from people who are a lot like me, they didn't go to texas to study with the gold and ivory revolver set.


I think that's great, but it has no relation to Hombre's post.


----------



## globetrotter

ksinc said:


> I think that's great, but it has no relation to Hombre's post.


no relation to H's post, response to your post about gold sixguns.


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> well, I have a pretty good Idea who Jim Wilson is. the others, I have no idea. I don't, actually, spend much time or energy reading about people in the "gun world".
> 
> if you took the guys who were at my wedding, you would probrably have 200-300 firefights represented. one of the guys who stood up with me was in 12 firefights with hizballah. I can pretty much guarantee that he has never touched a gun magazine. he is a chubby CPA with 3 kids. now, if I were to choose if I wanted a cowboy with a gold pistol at my side, or a grunt who has stared into an ak-47 from 3 meters and kept firing - I have no doubt who I would choose.
> 
> I don't know humbrerana, but I agree with what he says. I have said similar in the past - I have been a gunman, I know a lot of gunmen, I don't know any of them who have fancy guns. and, frankly, the ones I know are not what you would call "gun people". but, when the US military wanted to develop new tactics for urban warfare before iraq, they went to study from people who are a lot like me, they didn't go to texas to study with the gold and ivory revolver set.


Perhaps we would be better served if they had considering the results? 

You're just running from the real issue of Hombre's post. Which seems to be old hat for some - they admit they know next to nothing about guns, but think they just pull out their service record and they are automatically right about guns. Well, sorry, no - it really doesn't work that way. Shame on you. Perhaps you know a lot about fire fights, what exactly does that have to do with the correlation between gun safety and custom firearms again? How is the training to be a Marine Corp rifleman in combat similar to that required to handle a CCW pistol in a civilian environment? I have the highest respect for Military men, but most serviceman are not even issued sidearms. Yet, somehow they are all "subject matter experts"? The named men in question clearly are handgun experts.

I know a guy, I won't say who he is or what he did in an effort to compete with you, that's not the point. However, I've had a ton of conversations with him about guns and not one time has he tried to justify his opinion with the # of firefights he was in and he could. For him it would be pointless and repetitive. He simply says, "I was in the Navy" when asked about his service record. The facts of his arguments stand on their own. It's quite refreshing.


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> no relation to H's post, response to your post about gold sixguns.


No relation to that either. I thought you and Hombre were the same person since you answered for him.


----------



## globetrotter

ksinc said:


> Perhaps you know a lot about fire fights, what exactly does that have to do with the correlation between gun safety and custom firearms again? .


well, let me put it this way - the reason for the existance of firearms is firefights - putting holes in bad guys, as somebody just said. the difference between somebody who builds furniature and someone who collects gold plated hammers, I guess.

you brought up an article about a group of people who have fancy guns. I, and perhaps I was not clear, suggested that these people were not an example to be copied, in the issue of firearms. you then asked me if I knew a list of "Gunmen" - I said that I didn't, but that the gun men I know are probrably better, and don't have gold guns.

now, I may not have stated that clearly enough, but that was the direction I was trying to go.


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> well, let me put it this way - the reason for the existance of firearms is firefights - putting holes in bad guys, as somebody just said. the difference between somebody who builds furniature and someone who collects gold plated hammers, I guess.
> 
> you brought up an article about a group of people who have fancy guns. I, and perhaps I was not clear, suggested that these people were not an example to be copied, in the issue of firearms. you then asked me if I knew a list of "Gunmen" - I said that I didn't, but that the gun men I know are probrably better, and don't have gold guns.
> 
> now, I may not have stated that clearly enough, but that was the direction I was trying to go.


Ok.

However, this was started by Hombres post which you rose in support of. So, let me ask you this ... How many black pajama wearing custom handgun toters have you seen - outside of "the Nam"?

My point is and remains. His post is 'crap' and an illegitimate attack on gentleman arms in the name of 'gun safety'.

The only purpose for handguns is not firefights. Your only purpose for them is firefights maybe. I've not been in a firefight, nor am I likely to, but I certainly wouldn't try to use a handgun if I anticipated one. Again, with the utmost respect for your service, I find that argument a bit of a ploy. I'm sure you are sincere, but if this was an AR-15 warrior thread I would agree. But, none of that was said in this thread - contrary to Hombre's claim. This was a gentleman's pistol thread. Surely, you can see the distinction. Sure, I have a custom 45 which I described as a "nightstand queen", but no black pajamas.  I also have a collection of S&W DA revolvers that I carry and hunt with. I'd certainly bet $1 and be more than a bit shocked if I'm not both more competent AND SAFER with them than many combat vets. I also have an M1A and shoot competitively, but I never pretend to a be a paratrooper. I don't own camo or boots other than Filson. I hunt turkeys and hogs wearing khaki and blaze orange and my guns aren't wrapped in 100mph tape.

I never understood that 'dress up' mindset either, but again ... there is ZERO correlation between that and custom handguns and gun safety shown. Most of those idiots in my experience have SKSs and other surplus arms. There just is not any correclation and there is historical fact that custom handguns DO have a long history among those who actually depend on a handgun even in a military combat situation and not a LE one as the men in question. Swenson and Wilson in particular made custom 1911 pistols for Navy Seals and other spec types. It's just a fact of history.

Sure, everyone you know today uses standardized Glocks or Sigs or HKs. Groovy. That's interesting, but doesn't support Hombre's claim. It's just a different matter. My friends enjoy the beauty of a well made firearm like we enjoy a well made pair of shoes or a cigar or any other item for which their are conniesuers. We also enjoy the beauty of performance and function in the accuracy and engineering of a firearm. I would hazard a guess such admirers are the very safest of all gun owners including those with military service. In fact, my closest collector friend is a retired General.


----------



## globetrotter

ksinc said:


> Ok.
> 
> However, this was started by Hombres post which you rose in support of. So, let me ask you this ... How many black pajama wearing custom handgun toters have you seen - outside of "the Nam"?
> 
> My point is and remains. His post is 'crap' and an illegitimate attack on gentleman arms in the name of 'gun safety'.
> 
> The only purpose for handguns is not firefights. Your only purpose for them is firefights maybe. I've not been in a firefight, nor am I likely to, but I certainly wouldn't try to use a handgun if I anticipated one. Again, with the utmost respect for your service, I find that argument a bit of a ploy. I'm sure you are sincere, but if this was an AR-15 warrior thread I would agree. But, none of that was said in this thread - contrary to Hombre's claim. This was a gentleman's pistol thread. Surely, you can see the distinction. Sure, I have a custom 45 which I described as a "nightstand queen", but no black pajamas.  I also have a collection of S&W DA revolvers that I carry and hunt with. I'd certainly bet $1 and be more than a bit shocked if I'm not both more competent AND SAFER with them than many combat vets. I also have an M1A and shoot competitively, but I never pretend to a be a paratrooper. I don't own camo or boots other than Filson. I hunt turkeys and hogs wearing khaki and blaze orange and my guns aren't wrapped in 100mph tape.
> 
> I never understood that 'dress up' mindset either, but again ... there is ZERO correlation between that and custom handguns and gun safety shown. Most of those idiots in my experience have SKSs and other surplus arms. There just is not any correclation and there is historical fact that custom handguns DO have a long history among those who actually depend on a handgun even in a military combat situation and not a LE one as the men in question. Swenson and Wilson in particular made custom 1911 pistols for Navy Seals and other spec types. It's just a fact of history.
> 
> Sure, everyone you know today uses standardized Glocks or Sigs or HKs. Groovy. That's interesting, but doesn't support Hombre's claim. It's just a different matter. My friends enjoy the beauty of a well made firearm like we enjoy a well made pair of shoes or a cigar or any other item for which their are conniesuers. We also enjoy the beauty of performance and function in the accuracy and engineering of a firearm. I would hazard a guess such admirers are the very safest of all gun owners including those with military service. In fact, my closest collector friend is a retired General.


K, I thought that I might be wrong, so I went back to re-read H's post. I don't see any reference to saftey. what he seems to be saying, which is one of my positions that I have raised in the past, is that considering a pistol a fashion accesory is imature. I consider this a point of aesthtics, more than saftey. I happen to have several arguments, myself, including not beleiving that firearms are the best way to defend oneself, the saftey issue, and the aesthetic issue. as far as I can see, H is only relating to the aesthitic issue.

but not knowing him, I don't want to speak for him.


----------



## globetrotter

oh, and never seen anyone in blcak pajamas....


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> K, I thought that I might be wrong, so I went back to re-read H's post. I don't see any reference to saftey. what he seems to be saying, which is one of my positions that I have raised in the past, is that considering a pistol a fashion accesory is imature. I consider this a point of aesthtics, more than saftey. I happen to have several arguments, myself, including not beleiving that firearms are the best way to defend oneself, the saftey issue, and the aesthetic issue. as far as I can see, H is only relating to the aesthitic issue.
> 
> but not knowing him, I don't want to speak for him.


Well, the only thing a person could complain about regarding a lack of 'respectable level of proficiency' would an inability to put the rounds only where they are supposed to go - which is unsafe if you aren't in a combat environment. In a civilian world safety is proficiency/competence. The only immature thing about a gun is an immature mindset which would also be unsafe. Other than that, I think it's just a BS personal bias. Sorry. I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Immature, is trying to dismiss/marginalize others and making stupid comments about black pajamas 

I do respect and to a large extent agree completely with your previous statements about self-defense. I certainly feel that a gun is not the best SD tool in the most likely scenarious 1% of us will find ourselves in. I also do not think that is necessarily an arugment against gun ownership or guns for SD. I see them separately.


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> oh, and never seen anyone in blcak pajamas....


Yes, I had a suspicion that was the case! The outlandishness of that accusation nullifies the rest of his argument IMHO 

Do your professional friends make such exaggerations when discussing such "mature" topics as arms? I would think the answer is again 'no'.

I have no problem with someone who says "I see no point to that" when looking at a custom handgun. My Wife says the same thing! LOL It's trying to paint with a broader brush of innuendo and false claims that bothers me. Certainly, a high level of proficiency is exactly what Mr.s Keith, Skelton, and Jordan preached and exhibited.

I realized I'm biased, but I hope and think I portray a very mature mindset about handguns. And; when I see someone being unsafe at a range I call for a range officer. I left one range because they didn't even have a range officer. I practice what I preach and was taught by my Dad (with a .357) and Grandpa (with the 45) both Army. Even though they dreamed I would go to college and not the military, they thought it was an important part of being a gentleman to know about guns and hunting. Will I teach my kids to shoot? You betcha. Sitting here today in my office is my GrandFathers' gun cabinet and his collection. 

Cheers!


----------



## LSeca

JLibourel said:


> Looks like a perfectly nice contemporary "custom carry" 1911, but I fail to see anything particularly trad-like about it.
> 
> Now, if you were using a straight, unmodified M1911 that your grandfather or great-grandfather had carried in WWI, that would be Trad!


I agree, however, it is trad in a way. Everyone seems to be carrying black, "tactical" high capacity plastic crap with flashlight attatchments and lazers sights nowadays. I will take the tried and true 1911.



ksinc said:


> Very, very nice pistol!


Thank you sir.


----------



## ksinc

LSeca said:


> I agree, however, it is trad in a way. Everyone seems to be carrying black, "tactical" high capacity plastic crap with flashlight attatchments and lazers sights nowadays. I will take the tried and true 1911.
> 
> Thank you sir.


So you shoot it? Cool


----------



## JLibourel

Anent the article by my friend John Taffin about liking attractive guns that ksinc linked, I can't see what the complaint is about men liking beautiful weaponry. Men having been doting on fine weapons since the bronze age, at the very latest, and I have always suspected that Ung and Grulk took pride in their finely chipped flint hand axes back in the Paleolithic.

My late friend Dave Arnold once remarked to me concerning all these ugly black plastic and black painted guns that they are making the guns so ugly nobody will mind when they take them all away. I still like guns with nice wood and blued steel.

I helped John get started in the writing game. I bought and published Sheriff Jim's first articles. I worked with both Elmer Keith and Bill Jordan. Never had the pleasure of working with Skeeter. He was a very quiet, modest man, almost shy with people he didn't know well. It's kind of neat to have worked with so many of the greats of the gun game--some others having been Jeff Cooper, Col. Charles Askins and Col. Rex Applegate.

Getting back to liking your guns to be beautiful, is it that much different from wanting your women to be beautiful? After all, as one former love of mine once remarked, "Everyone has a c**t." [Well, half the population, anyway.]


----------



## Hombrerana

Well the fur certainly seems to be flying! I don't intend to rehash my earlier comments, they stand on their own; however, just to clarify a few points:

Firstly, I listed my gun "credentials" not to proclaim my status as an expert, but simply to state my position as largely pro gun. I have not published my dd214 or trotted out my service record, so we can leave that out of it.
Black pajamas - there was a shooting league here in the Puget Sound a while back that had everyone showing up in their black fatigues, with their tricked out AR's w/ACOG NSN's, drop holsters, tactical gear, and yes many custom pistols. They would meet once a week in the training bay at a local range that I also booked quite often. My general impression of these folks was that they were scary, and they were posers. They were not affiliated with any tactical unit, police or military, just a bunch of guys living out a fantasy I suppose. While there is nothing wrong with having a fantasy per se, these guys just creeped me out a bit. Oh BTW, "Black Pajamas" is just a generic term for tactical gear worn inappropriately (not in a tactical setting - trying to make a fashion statement).

I never implied that carrying a firearm for a living automatically qualifies one as proficient, quite the contrary; most cops are not proficient at all, receiving minimal training allowing them to pass incredibly weak qualifications. As for most servicemen not being issued sidearms, that may be true, but there are military units with some of the best combat pistol shooters in the world.

I have nothing against custom guns. I own two 1911's, both customized to some extent, and if I were shooting an NRA style pistol match I would certainly reach for one of those (actually I would have to as the rules are pretty specific); however, if my life depended on it, as should be your mindset every time you carry - unless doing so merely for show (this in my opinion is incredibly immature) - I would reach for my Glock every time. Why? Because it is more reliable! As for being ugly or black or not of a respectable vintage - who cares? I'm not carrying to cultivate a look, but for practical reasons, and those are the only reasons to carry.

Now, as for the light rails and laser sights, etc. I have never been a fan of either, I have always had a light on my primary, or carried a separate sure fire when carrying a pistol only; however, I wouldn't run them down because they are not the classic serviceman's 1911. Neither would I think much of someone who carried such a rig every day to the grocery store - that is the sign of someone living in a fantasy world, in their own spec ops video game - on the way to pick up a bottle of milk for their mom before heading back their home in her basement (black pajama crowd above).

While I think that collecting guns and having an appreciation for firearms is great, there is no corollary to being a gentleman, nor in my opinion would a gentleman wear a particular pistol because it looks good with his loafers. Again, the wearing of a pistol is not a fashion statement but rather a serious decision, one not to be made on the basis of fashion.


----------



## Kav

A famous artifact from prehistoric Europe is the so called 'baton de commandant' of finely carved ivory with a polished hole on one end. For years it's use was unknown and thought to be some manner of ceremonial sceptor or wand. Finally somebody connnected it with contemporary shaft straighteners used by modern peoples still using atl-atl or archery technology. When I excavated Wood Ranch, a now vanished oak riparian woodland at the foot of the Reagan Library, I found two lovely projectile points. They were knapped from a lovely blue grey chert with unusual striations of black forming a stunning pinstripe effect. I shared my discovery with Charlie Cook, last hereditary Chumash chief. Charlie was packing an older Smith and Wesson kitgun in .22lr, vintage ivory grips ,his initials inlayed in gold and #3 engraving with muzzle wear in an old S.D. Meyers crossdraw. I asked him, and with sincerity if this was a sign from a ancestral family member? Charlie merely pulled his Smith' and told everyone to stand still. Elga, the estonian unreconstructed communist berated us ' violent men with our penis symbols' moments before Charlie blew a Pacific Coast Buzzworm away coiling almost next to Elga. Charlie calmly holstered his piece, looked at the two points with pleasure and said " I hope so, look at the workmanship!" Gentlemen have always embellished weapons. Gentlemen are always prepared to use them for the social welfare of society.


----------



## ksinc

FTR, the font you post in shouldn't be a fashion statement either. LOL

You should change you sig quote to "Hombre - the rest are just posers and queers" 

You're trying awful hard to make an irrelevant point IMHO. Fashion statement? It seems like your more worried about the tactical clothes than the actual guns. Most of the posters here are Trads and abhor 'fashion'.


----------



## ksinc

Kav said:


> A famous artifact from prehistoric Europe is the so called 'baton de commandant' of finely carved ivory with a polished hole on one end. For years it's use was unknown and thought to be some manner of ceremonial sceptor or wand. Finally somebody connnected it with contemporary shaft straighteners used by modern peoples still using atl-atl or archery technology. When I excavated Wood Ranch, a now vanished oak riparian woodland at the foot of the Reagan Library, I found two lovely projectile points. They were knapped from a lovely blue grey chert with unusual striations of black forming a stunning pinstripe effect. I shared my discovery with Charlie Cook, last hereditary Chumash chief. Charlie was packing an older Smith and Wesson kitgun in .22lr, vintage ivory grips ,his initials inlayed in gold and #3 engraving with muzzle wear in an old S.D. Meyers crossdraw. I asked him, and with sincerity if this was a sign from a ancestral family member? Charlie merely pulled his Smith' and told everyone to stand still. Elga, the estonian unreconstructed communist berated us ' violent men with our penis symbols' moments before Charlie blew a Pacific Coast Buzzworm away coiling almost next to Elga. Charlie calmly holstered his piece, looked at the two points with pleasure and said " I hope so, look at the workmanship!" Gentlemen have always embellished weapons. Gentlemen are always prepared to use them for the social welfare of society.


Kav, great post.

At least I know I can count on you if I have to defend my custom handled Fallkniven


----------



## globetrotter

ksinc said:


> Kav, great post.
> 
> At least I know I can count on you if I have to defend my custom handled Fallkniven


this sort of accents our differences, K - to me, the idea of a grown man wearing a fancy 6 shooter so that he can shoot bugs is way past silly. and, very frankly, I can't even begin to express my feelings for a man who fires his handgun off in the direction of others, to show off.

yes, men have always decorated their weapons. and for every man out carefully carving animals on his spear thrower, there was another guy putting the same amount of effort into practicing his spear throwing, who would later end up using the first guys skull for a drinking cup.

anyway, peace to all, and i hope that none of us with have reason to use our various weapons in the near future.


----------



## Kav

Once again I foil my own efforts in assuming a common knowledge of science and folklore. Please research the colloquial meaning of buzzworms. If you don't find any, look up the Genus Crotalus.


----------



## globetrotter

Kav said:


> Once again I foil my own efforts in assuming a common knowledge of science and folklore. Please research the colloquial meaning of buzzworms. If you don't find any, look up the Genus Crotalus.


I stand corrected. and, having put a few 5.56 rounds into a cobra in my tent once, I can't argue with the issue. on the other hand, I used an old and worn assult rifle.


----------



## ksinc

Globetrotter, 

I left this out yesterday, because it really had nothing to do with the main argument. However, in the calm of today I want to say that I really bristle a bit because I feel there is some insinuation that these men were not "the real deal" and your comments about gold guns in Texas seem dismissive/disrespectful. No one disrespects those who serve in the era of plastic ARs and Glocks, but these particular old-timers often faced worse and often alone with wood and steel. IMHO they deserve far better than these pitiful few paragraphs snagged from Wiki. However, hopefully they will help you, a bit. Again, I respect you and your friends service (certainly I have none myself and am not trying to get into a pissing contest with you), but to think they would not also respect and highly regard these men or consider them only 'magazine writers with gold guns' is just a serious error of judgement, historical perspective, and PRIDE. In my HUMBLE opinion.

Cheers!

P.S. the 5.56 is a fine carbine. My Wife has one and she loves it! 

Charles 'Skeeter' Skelton (1928-1988) was an American lawman and firearms writer. After serving in the US Marine Corps from 1945-46 he began a law enforcement career which included service with the US Border Patrol, a term as Sheriff of Deaf Smith County, Texas, and investigator with both the US Customs Service and Drug Enforcement Administration. In the '60s Skelton began writing part time for firearms periodicals. In 1974 he retired from the DEA and concentrated full time on his writing.

Born William Henry Jordan in 1911 in Louisiana, he served for over 30 years with the U.S. Border Patrol, while also fitting in stints with the Marines during World War II and Korea. He retired from the Marine Reserve as a Colonel. Developed the Jordan or Border Patrol holster. Jordan always favored a double action revolver for law enforcement duties. Jordan was largely responsible for convincing Smith & Wesson to develop the K-frame series (S&W Model 19 and S&W Model 66) of .357 Magnum revolvers. Wrote numerous articles on all aspects of firearms, as well as books such as No Second Place Winner and Tales of the Rio Grande. After retiring from the Border Patrol, Jordan served as a spokesman for the National Rifle Association. He was a contemporary of Charles Askins, Elmer Keith, Skeeter Skelton and to a lesser degree, Jack O'Connor.

Using a double action revolver, Bill Jordan was recorded drawing, firing and hitting his target in .27 of a second. See No Second Place Winner by Bill Jordan.


----------



## globetrotter

K,

this is the sort of thing that is very hard to bridge - I have a strong opinion, developed and nurtured over more than 20 years, and I am guessing that you and many others do, too. 

the book, flag of our fathers (or something similar) spoke very much to my feelings about this, I guess. a hell of alot of people out there lived as warriors, put away their weapons, and spent the rest of their lives as regular family guys. my father had a pretty amazing war (or, as he calls it, his "11 days"), and didn't tell me anything about it until I was in the army, myself. I have spent a chunk of my life with men who were exeptional at using firearms - not so much in terms of fast drawing and possibly not so much in terms of axtremly accurate trick shooting, but in terms of putting holes in people while they were trying to put holes in you. and, none of these guys had fancy guns, or were remotly interested in reading gun magazines or even talking too much about guns, or really even talked to much about the whole thing.

I have had this conversation, or discussion, several times over the past few years, and have learned to be less critical of people who don't agree with me - I have also understood that in the US military often their is a different attitude. but it is still an issue pretty deeply ingrained in my belief system. 


I guess my feeling has been that if a gunman is famous enough that he is "well known", he probrably is less of a gunman and more of a publisist. but that is a personal predudice. 

anyway, have a great day. 


ps - the 5.56 that I used was the galil - not in use by the IDF any more, it is a great caliber, a little heavy but a lot tougher than an M-16 after the first year of use. great weapon. 5.56 makes a hell of a hole in bad guys.


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> K,
> 
> this is the sort of thing that is very hard to bridge - I have a strong opinion, developed and nurtured over more than 20 years, and I am guessing that you and many others do, too.
> 
> the book, flag of our fathers (or something similar) spoke very much to my feelings about this, I guess. a hell of alot of people out there lived as warriors, put away their weapons, and spent the rest of their lives as regular family guys. my father had a pretty amazing war (or, as he calls it, his "11 days"), and didn't tell me anything about it until I was in the army, myself. I have spent a chunk of my life with men who were exeptional at using firearms - not so much in terms of fast drawing and possibly not so much in terms of axtremly accurate trick shooting, but in terms of putting holes in people while they were trying to put holes in you. and, none of these guys had fancy guns, or were remotly interested in reading gun magazines or even talking too much about guns, or really even talked to much about the whole thing.
> 
> I have had this conversation, or discussion, several times over the past few years, and have learned to be less critical of people who don't agree with me - I have also understood that in the US military often their is a different attitude. but it is still an issue pretty deeply ingrained in my belief system.
> 
> I guess my feeling has been that if a gunman is famous enough that he is "well known", he probrably is less of a gunman and more of a publisist. but that is a personal predudice.
> 
> anyway, have a great day.
> 
> ps - the 5.56 that I used was the galil - not in use by the IDF any more, it is a great caliber, a little heavy but a lot tougher than an M-16 after the first year of use. great weapon. 5.56 makes a hell of a hole in bad guys.


Well, you seem convinced on insinuating that these men were giving exhibitions and doing trick shooting with their personal firearms in WW2 and Korea. I think they probably used the same service-issued Garands as everyone else did and put plenty of holes into bad guys since they returned alive.

I can't say whether I would rather serve a warrant alone in 1950/1960 SE Texas or Louisiana vs. serve in the Military. But, it doesn't matter, these men did both and survived both.

FWIW, the S&W M19 was a solution to a practical problem with sixguns for LEOs. Most target shooters, hunters, and hobbyists like myself prefer the M686. If a craftsman is known by his tools, having shot my Father's M27 w/ Skeeter's load in it for most of my life, I can say that Mr. Skelton knew what he was doing on a practical level and it wasn't learned shooting playing cards and apples. I don't think trick shooters prefer full-powered .357 magnum loads. Gen. Patton carried an M27 too.

To claim the two are mutually exclusive seems to have no point or basis. While there are many other examples in support, including the full relief scroll work on Davey Crockett's rifle.

As a military man, it might interest you to know that FMFRP 12-80 by Lt. Col. Rex Applegate has a foreword by then Maj. Bill Jordan. The techniques you taught, you learned. As I'm sure you are aware (from your previous posts on unarmed SD) they were adopted from JJ/KJ and the training developed for the military was by men like these.


----------



## globetrotter

ksinc said:


> Well, you seem convinced on insinuating that these men were giving exhibitions and doing trick shooting with their personal firearms in WW2 and Korea. I think they probably used the same service-issued Garands as everyone else did and put plenty of holes into bad guys since they returned alive.
> 
> I can't say whether I would rather serve a warrant alone in 1950/1960 SE Texas or Louisiana vs. serve in the Military. But, it doesn't matter, these men did both and survived both.
> 
> FWIW, the S&W M19 was a solution to a practical problem with sixguns for LEOs. Most target shooters, hunters, and hobbyists like myself prefer the M686. If a craftsman is known by his tools, having shot my Father's M27 w/ Skeeter's load in it for most of my life, I can say that Mr. Skelton knew what he was doing on a practical level and it wasn't learned shooting playing cards and apples. I don't think trick shooters prefer full-powered .357 magnum loads. Gen. Patton carried an M27 too.
> 
> To claim the two are mutually exclusive seems to have no point or basis. While there are many other examples in support, including the full relief scroll work on Davey Crockett's rifle.


sorry, K, I didn't mean to insunate anything - but let me put it this way, I have more admiration for the guys who were near davy crocket, but didn't get the press he did. ditto patton, so, in my humble opinion, they are not the type of role models I would take.

in any event, we are talking about an issue of personal taste and esthetics, here. we have very little chance of convincing each other to change the way we see it.


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> in any event, we are talking about an issue of personal taste and esthetics, here. we have very little chance of convincing each other to change the way we see it.


I'm glad we are in agreement and I don't have to try to convince you.

Clearly, personal taste and aesthetics are neither an indicator of proficiency, nor a lack thereof.


----------



## JLibourel

globetrotter said:


> K,
> I guess my feeling has been that if a gunman is famous enough that he is "well known", he probrably is less of a gunman and more of a publisist. but that is a personal predudice.


Most successful men in any field endeavor are very good self-promoters and self-publicists, or so I have found. Some of the "gun gurus" mentioned in this thread are (or were) much better publicists and self-promoters than they were gunfighters. I won't mention any names because a couple were friends of mine, and I enjoy cordial relations with another although I consider him an arrant fraud (albeit a genial enough fellow)!

Bill Jordan was another matter, as ksinc mentioned. I first met him when he was in his late 50s, worked with him continuously for a couple of years, and saw him intermittently up to the time of his death. One look in his eyes, and you knew he was not a man to be trifled with. Even into his 80s, he was a most imposing man. He stood about 6'7". He had huge hands and amazing reflexes. My late pal Dave Arnold, who was one of the top combat pistol shots of his day and had seen most of the best pistol shots of our time in action and had competed against many, said that Jordan was the most impressive gunman he ever saw. He said Jordan was the only man he ever saw who could consistently beat the drop. Jordan was delightfully easygoing to work with, BTW. There was absolutely nothing of the prima donna about him; he gave me a free hand to revise his material as I saw fit.

As I previously mentioned, I never worked with Charles "Skeeter" Skelton. He was a very beloved writer, and I think everyone regarded him as a thoroughly decent man. If there was any BS about him, I sure never detected it. He was a tragic figure in the end. He retired from law enforcement in 1974 after he injured his back in a jeep accident and was in considerable pain for the rest of his life. I was told that he self-medicated himself for pain with liberal doses of Henry McKenna Sour Mash. According to what I heard, he would start his day with a jelly glass full of the whisky! No doubt this help speed his early demise. I wish I had known him better.

At least in the American Southwest, down to fairly recent decades, the celebrity lawman-gunfighter was not an unusual figure. The Texas Rangers were particularly famous for this. I believe that Frank Hamer and "Lone Wolf" Gonzaullas have already been mentioned. When I was living in Austin in 1968-9, one young woman I knew was ecstatic over having just met the famous "Lone Wolf," as if he were some rock star. I have been told the more low-key Frank Hamer absolutely loathed the flamboyant Gonzaullas. As Bill Jordan once remarked to me, "Those old Rangers had very high opinions of themselves, and they were jealous of their reputations. They were ferocious." Oklahoma lawman D.A. "Jelly" Brice was another of this stripe. He was hired to instruct the FBI later, and for decades FBI shooting technique was posited on his instinctive methods. Today, the FBI relies on the Modern Technique, as promulgated by Jeff Cooper. However, I suspect a reaction against the Modern Technique may be brewing. Recent studies show that a lot of cops are being outshot by gangbangers and other street punks using point-shooting methods.


----------



## android

Does anyone here own a H&K P2000? 

I'm left handed and have been told it's an excellent choice since it is totally ambidextrous. I'm thinking of getting the 9mm.

Any input or suggestions are appreciated.

Thanks!


----------



## ksinc

JLibourel said:


> As I previously mentioned, I never worked with Charles "Skeeter" Skelton. He was a very beloved writer, and I think everyone regarded him as a thoroughly decent man. If there was any BS about him, I sure never detected it. He was a tragic figure in the end. He retired from law enforcement in 1974 after he injured his back in a jeep accident and was in considerable pain for the rest of his life. I was told that he self-medicated himself for pain with liberal doses of Henry McKenna Sour Mash. According to what I heard, he would start his day with a jelly glass full of the whisky! No doubt this help speed his early demise. I wish I had known him better.


Mr. L,

Thanks for sharing that. It is very sad. I did not know that about his passing. He was a favorite (I think because my Dad had a copy of "Skeeter's gun") and I always liked the sense of humor in his writings. I hope he knew how many people that never met him cared about him and would miss him.

SK


----------



## JLibourel

ksinc,

From the knowledgeable posts you've been making, if you'd be interested in a new career as a gun editor when I step down and retire in a couple of years, I'd be glad to put your name in. Of course, not that many gun guys want to work in California these days. I'm just glad I've got all the guns I could possibly want or need!


----------



## ksinc

JLibourel said:


> ksinc,
> 
> From the knowledgeable posts you've been making, if you'd be interested in a new career as a gun editor when I step down and retire in a couple of years, I'd be glad to put your name in. Of course, not that many gun guys want to work in California these days. I'm just glad I've got all the guns I could possibly want or need!


Mr. L,

My resume and qualifications would cast me in the role of simple fact checker and wide-eyed gawker! 

You are far too generous and kind!

You are fortunate that your collection is complete. As someone still acquiring his, I am amazed at the recent inflation on S&W wheelguns. It's very sudden and most are up 25% in the last few months. Demand is out of control in spite of all the 'splastics'. I guess that old C358-158 SWC at 1500fps isn't quite ready to retire afterall! 

Cheers!

SK


----------



## globetrotter

JLibourel said:


> . I'm just glad I've got all the guns I could possibly want or need!


hey, JL, that makes two of us.


----------



## Étienne

globetrotter said:


> hey, JL, that makes two of us.


Count me in. I have all the guns I could ever want or need indeed. And it was cheap to reach that state too!


----------



## a tailor

Rich said:


> Well, tailors will certainly allow for wallet bulge if you ask them, so why not pistol bulge? How did James Bond manage?


i have had the request for the extra room for my "peice". 
one customer had canvas holsters built in to all of his trousers waistbands.they were on the left side set at an angle for a cross draw.


----------



## ksinc

So, what about rifles? While pistols seem controversial because of the SD angle, every man should have a rifle - yes?


----------



## JLibourel

It may be argued that every man has a positive moral duty to provide for the defense of himself and his family, self-preservation being a fundamental law of nature. In our society, the handgun is usually the preferred device for this, given that it may be more easily secured, yet more ready to hand for home defense, and it is, in most circumstances, the only practicable weapon to have on one's person outside the home, except in wilderness situations and that kind of thing.

I think this is less cogent with the rifle. If one is not a hunter or an enthusiast of the shooting sports, there would seem to be little reason to own a rifle, unless one is in a rural situation where it may be needed for pest control. I don't much buy into the argument that every able bodied male should own a rifle for national defense or maintenance of public order since he is part of the "unorganized militia" under law, given the fact federal and state law makes it extremely difficult for most of us to own true military small arms--M16, M4, M14 and such. In a civil disorder or similar emergency, I doubt if many National Guard or police units would appreciate armed volunteers of unknown training and provenance showing up to augment their ranks.

For urban home defense, if one wants more than the handgun, I still prefer the shotgun for various reasons I will not elaborate on at the moment.


----------



## globetrotter

ksinc said:


> So, what about rifles? While pistols seem controversial because of the SD angle, every man should have a rifle - yes?


every man whose vocation is killing should, in fact, have a rifle.


----------



## JLibourel

I should think that most men whose vocation is killing, at least those on the right side of law, receive their rifles as government issue, rather than personal property.


----------



## Kav

Page 93 of this thread no doubt will debate the 5.5" dual purpose, rapid fire cannon. As to the 'vocation of killing' I can only put forward this anecdote. Professor Emeritus Jim Vernon, LACC Pierce College of meteorology and geology, late of the USN, late of the Park Service, pioneer aerial firefighting coordinator often called back to duty for major fires was discussing wind sheer and made the error of using a .50 BMG bullet for imagery. A student objected to discussing ' killer guns' on 'her' time. Doc Vernon, who looked and talked like a mellow Don Rickles with pipe and campaign hat paused. "Well, it was in 1947 at Yosemite when we received a report of a bearcub up a tree with the broken rim of a large picklejar wedged around it's neck. We drove our Willies Wagoneer to the location and my partner Jack, a former marine and Camp Perry competitive shooter pulled out his Winchester 52. There was a 'pregnant pause' and the girl had tears welling in her angry face. Doc Vernon's gravelly voice took up his story. "Jack shot once, breaking the glass necklace and saving the cub an agonising death. 10 extra credit points to anyone who can name the caliber of a model 52, Mr Kavanaugh excluded. Class Dismissed."


----------



## globetrotter

Kav said:


> Page 93 of this thread no doubt will debate the 5.5" dual purpose, rapid fire cannon. As to the 'vocation of killing' I can only put forward this anecdote. Professor Emeritus Jim Vernon, LACC Pierce College of meteorology and geology, late of the USN, late of the Park Service, pioneer aerial firefighting coordinator often called back to duty for major fires was discussing wind sheer and made the error of using a .50 BMG bullet for imagery. A student objected to discussing ' killer guns' on 'her' time. Doc Vernon, who looked and talked like a mellow Don Rickles with pipe and campaign hat paused. "Well, it was in 1947 at Yosemite when we received a report of a bearcub up a tree with the broken rim of a large picklejar wedged around it's neck. We drove our Willies Wagoneer to the location and my partner Jack, a former marine and Camp Perry competitive shooter pulled out his Winchester 52. There was a 'pregnant pause' and the girl had tears welling in her angry face. Doc Vernon's gravelly voice took up his story. "Jack shot once, breaking the glass necklace and saving the cub an agonising death. 10 extra credit points to anyone who can name the caliber of a model 52, Mr Kavanaugh excluded. Class Dismissed."


oh, of course, this happens to me all the time. I can't think of how many times I year I am called upon to shoot the necks of pickel jars from around the necks of bear cubs.


----------



## JLibourel

I know you've had a colorful, adventurous career, globe, but I didn't know you were a Park Ranger today!

Anent the Model 52, some relatives of mine had a Model 52 Sporter with a nice scope--this was back in the mid-50s--and the damn fools traded it even for a Winchester Model 62 because their little boy was left handed. Dumbest trade I ever heard of. The "little boy" is now a sexagenarian. Knowing him, I bet he's still got that Model 62!


----------



## Desk Jockey

Yeah it's a fine day to talk about owning guns, isn't? Doubly so when dicussing high-capacity handguns. Great day to talk  about guns.


----------



## Kav

This thread has been going on for sometime. It is not an insensitive NRA rally in Columbine. The most recent posts were made before, or as the facts were slowly being made public. Would you have pilots stop discussing aircraft because of 9/11? Perhaps racecar drivers should be spat on in public because of teenage roadracing deaths. One of the most gruesome deaths I've ever seen was a illegal immigrant in a lemon grove, most of his upper torso devoured by a woodchipper. Shall we boycott power landscaping tools?


----------



## JLibourel

Since I made the latest post on this thread, I will mention that I made it before hearing of the tragedy at Virginia Tech.

I still do not think an occasional rampage by a madman--however tragic and horrifying we find it--is sufficient reason to give up a precious American right.


----------



## ksinc

Desk Jockey said:


> Yeah it's a fine day to talk about owning guns, isn't? Doubly so when dicussing high-capacity handguns. Great day to talk  about guns.


Your post is confrontational and antagonistic. Other posters in this thread have expressed sympathy and horror for the victims in the apropo threads on VT. Perhaps the better part of discretion is to keep your uninformed views to yourself?

FWIW, In 2006 Virginia Tech lobbied against a bill that would have allowed CWP holders to carry on campus. It helped to defeat that bill. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker celebrated that defeat: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." "I think it's fair to say that we believe guns don't belong in the classroom," Hincker said. "In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear." "We think we have the right to adhere to and enforce that policy because, in the end, we think it's a common-sense policy for the protection of students, staff and faculty as well as guests and visitors," Hincker said.

Of course, the real issue was the right of students with CWPs to have them on campus and in dorms for self-protection. If you really want to discuss handguns and SD fine, but you are not going to like the "facts" of this terrible tragedy that although probably not avoided, possibly could have been minimized. Freedom from fear also means freedom to fight back against the evil and crazy ones. Unless you have a plan to cull them from the herd (which you should share), you need to respect the right of others to defend themselves from wackos. This is a terrible and unfortunate example of only the criminal having a gun. It's the real world distinction between *"feeling safe"* and actually *"being safe"* that a spokesman at an academic institution is probably poorly qualified to make. It definitely does not feel good in hindsight and I think no one celebrates it. It's just a terrible tragedy.

I don't think either side should attempt to make political hay out of it, but I did see several stations that trotted out gun-control "experts" and ABC was doing polling within the first hour. I'm sure the NRA will do the same from their perspective. Perhaps your accusations of callousness would be better directed to them instead of members of this forum? And; perhaps you should wait a reasonable amount of time for those involved to grieve?

As was already said, *you* were the one to top this thread and to post after the incident made news.


----------



## Desk Jockey

Kav said:


> This thread has been going on for sometime. It is not an insensitive NRA rally in Columbine. The most recent posts were made before, or as the facts were slowly being made public. Would you have pilots stop discussing aircraft because of 9/11? Perhaps racecar drivers should be spat on in public because of teenage roadracing deaths. One of the most gruesome deaths I've ever seen was a illegal immigrant in a lemon grove, most of his upper torso devoured by a woodchipper. Shall we boycott power landscaping tools?


That's, I think and indeed was my reasoning, regardless. I know that's the thread's been running since Feb of last year, I've paged through it on more than a few occasions.

To answer your questions: no, in each of your examples, the method of death (be it a commercial airliner, a race car or assorted landscaping tools) was not designed for that purpose. A 757 is meant, and marketed, to move a number of people from one locality to another. The race car to entertain; albeit there you've got me: from what I understand, the height of joy in going to a race is not to see a couple dozen cars turn left at high speed but rather to see deadly bumper cars. However, NASCAR, and the fans thereof, does frown on driver deaths. The very purpose of the wood chipper is to take the bulk, as it were, out of undesired lumber and though, in both your case and I'm sure thousands of others it has been used for murder and destruction, it's once again designed and marketed as a wood chipper.

Guns, be it rifles, shotguns, handguns or even cannons, are meant to kill. They are meant to kill animals or other people. That is the designated function. They are not meant to look pretty all oiled up on a wall. They are not meant to link you to your ancestors (and in this my father is guilty of owning a shotgun that's been in the family since the turn of the last century). Nor are they meant to make you feel like an adult in some sort of rite or passage thing. They are meant to kill.

I say this as someone who will soon be in the profession of serving the Government (or, in the words of a Fire Control Chief from CORTRAMID a few summers ago, taking people's lives) as an officer of the Navy. Impeach my timing or obfuscate the matter, but I beg recognize the essential issue at hand: should there exist the individual right on the part of the citizen to end another's life through the use of a gun?


----------



## Desk Jockey

ksinc said:


> Your post is confrontational and antagonistic. Others in this thread have expressed sympathy and horror for the victims. Perhaps the better part of discretion is to keep your uninformed views to yourself?


How better to honor the dead, of which one was an acquaintance, than to try to prevent the same method of their murder in the future?



> FWIW, In 2006 Virginia Tech lobbied against a bill that would have allowed CWP holders to carry on campus. It helped to defeat that bill. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker celebrated that defeat: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." "I think it's fair to say that we believe guns don't belong in the classroom," Hincker said. "In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear." "We think we have the right to adhere to and enforce that policy because, in the end, we think it's a common-sense policy for the protection of students, staff and faculty as well as guests and visitors," Hincker said.


I see no lack of logic on the part of Mr Hincker. Indeed, I agree with him. Guns have an unerring ability to destablize situations both public and educational.



> Of course, the real issue was the right of students with CWPs to have them on campus and in dorms for self-protection. If you really want to discuss handguns and SD fine, but you are not going to like the "facts" of this terrible tragedy that although probably not avoided, possibly could have been minimized. Freedom from fear also means freedom to fight back against the evil and crazy ones. Unless you have a plan to cull them from the herd (which you should share), you need to respect the right of others to defend themselves from wackos. This is a terrible and unfortunate example of only the criminal having a gun. It definitely does not feel good in hindsight.


I'm an RA and in my duties I have to, from time to time, deal with unruly drunks. I'd worry for my safety whenever I'm woken up at 4 in the morning, because odds are that if someone's sloshed enough to jump out a second story window to escape me (which, frighteningly enough has happened), then they might get the idea to simply shoot me had they had a gun (which wasn't subject to confiscation). Or, let's say I discover drugs or alcohol in their room and it's the second strike. They may think, "well, I'm screwed anyway" a fire off a warning shot into my rather personally important skull. Mind you, nothing truly stops that from happening now (aside of course from my current internship back home), however with weapons barred from campus there is that extra step to move past that I depend on.



> I don't think either side should attempt to make political hay out of it, but I did see several stations that trotted out gun-control "experts" and ABC was doing polling within the first hour. Perhaps your accusations of callousness would be better directed to them?


Pray tell, what better time than when the public is viscerally aware of the consequences?


----------



## Kav

OMG, another ROTC war hero off to the ocean blue in his Richard Gere occifer and a gentleman whites.Let me be the first to toss confetti for your triumphant ride to COngress and A CMH. Your argument against individual rights fails miserably given your career choice to enforce by physical force the political will of a collective. With this mindset I give you 6 weeks before fiberglass fibers find their way into your rack, your medical shot records disappear and some CPO float tests you off the fantail on the midwatch, assuming you don't become a sandcrab sailor made of chocolate navigating a wastebasket.


----------



## ksinc

Desk Jockey said:


> I say this as someone who will soon be in the profession of serving the Government (or, in the words of a Fire Control Chief from CORTRAMID a few summers ago, taking people's lives) as an officer of the Navy. Impeach my timing or obfuscate the matter, but I beg recognize the essential issue at hand: should there exist the individual right on the part of the citizen to end another's life through the use of a gun?


I beg you to answer that question yourself before taking an oath and attempting to lead others to defend a Constitution you aren't quite sure you believe.


----------



## ksinc

Desk Jockey said:


> Pray tell, what better time than when the public is viscerally aware of the consequences?


You act as if someone will forget the dead. I can't imagine anyone will ever forget this; particularly so those with friends and relatives from Virginia or VT itself. A better time? Once there is at least a facade of closure for the victims and their families. It seems you are neither an Officer nor a Gentleman, yet. Pray tell, what better time to start?


----------



## Desk Jockey

Kav said:


> OMG, another ROTC war hero off to the ocean blue in his Richard Gere occifer and a gentleman whites.Let me be the first to toss confetti for your triumphant ride to COngress and A CMH. Your argument against individual rights fails miserably given your career choice to enforce by physical force the political will of a collective. With this mindset I give you 6 weeks before fiberglass fibers find their way into your rack, your medical shot records disappear and some CPO float tests you off the fantail on the midwatch, assuming you don't become a sandcrab sailor made of chocolate navigating a wastebasket.


Holy personal attacks, Batman!

War hero? Richard Gere? Right then, so I guess the centuries long history of my families service to the Republic boils down to me watching a romance flim from the 80's (ostensibly on rerun given that I'd yet to be born and all). Eh, folks have done worse things on far more nonsensical reasons.

To the only cogent part of the post, there is a divide between the rights of individual citizens and the governmental groups of which they're a part. The Government has the right to tax the income of the collective citizenry. Indeed, I filed my income tax only a few hours ago. However, when an individual performs the same action, they're likely to the indited on charges of extortion.



ksinc said:


> I beg you to answer that question yourself before taking an oath and attempting to lead others to defend a Constitution you aren't quite sure you believe.


I believe every bit in the Constitution and I resent your implications. I especially believe in that barring the use of an organized militia, the Government should have every right and ability to regulate the possession of firearms.



ksinc said:


> You act as if someone will forget the dead. I can't imagine anyone will ever forget this; particularly so those with friends and relatives from Virginia or VT itself. A better time? Once there is at least a facade of closure for the victims and their families. It seems you are neither an Officer nor a Gentleman, yet. Pray tell, what better time to start?


Something makes me doubt that I'm alone in my feelings on the day's events. If we as the body politic do not come quickly to an understanding then by the simple action of inertia will farmers in Nebraska, line workers in Washington and millions of others across the country will, sadly, forget. How long did it take for us to move out of the public conscience New Orleans? Little more than two months past and the media had moved on to the next, or continuing, story.


----------



## ksinc

Desk Jockey said:


> I believe every bit in the Constitution and I resent your implications. I especially believe in that barring the use of an organized militia, the Government should have every right and ability to regulate the possession of firearms.


You're obviously headed for a long career in military intelligence (or supply).


----------



## Kav

For a polywog ensign who finds his dad's family shotgun as generational connection distastefull you don't mind parading the family artifacts of service. I can match you generation for generation back to and including the first Revenue Cutter Service, a family member entombed on USS Arizona and my own DD 214. This is properly a time of mourning and not belabouring social agendas with wet nosed boys. Come back in 10 years when your interesting.


----------



## Wayfarer

Desk Jockey said:


> ...so I guess the centuries long history of my families service to the Republic ...


If you can prove your "families" service for over 200 years to the US of A, I for one will be impressed.



Desk Jockey said:


> Guns, be it rifles, shotguns, handguns or even cannons, are meant to kill.


And cars are meant for transportation, yet they kill more people every year than guns in the US. And anesthesia is meant as part of surgical procedures, yet it kills or mains thousands and thousands every year. Should we outlaw these?

Knives are meant to cut animal flesh. Do I need to drag up that reference I recently posted showing government stats that you are more likely to be killed through a stab wound than a gunshot wound. Should we outlaw knives, as they are designed to cut animal flesh?

I am sorry, but with today's happenings, call me jaded, but I do not think someone on an anti-gun rant on the internet is headed into the armed forces, nor do I think you can trace over 200 years of family history in the service of the US. It is all just a bit too contrived.


----------



## Desk Jockey

ksinc said:


> You're obviously headed for a long career in military intelligence (or supply).


You, too, desend to personal attacks. Well, aside from that being a pretty bad attempt, I'll hopefully be a SWO.



Kav said:


> For a polywog ensign who finds his dad's family shotgun as generational connection distastefull you don't mind parading the family artifacts of service. I can match you generation for generation back to and including the first Revenue Cutter Service, a family member entombed on USS Arizona and my own DD 214. This is properly a time of mourning and not belabouring social agendas with wet nosed boys. Come back in 10 years when your interesting.


I never said I had a commission. I'm a Midshipman 2nd. As well, comparing family service "lenghts," was in responce to you stating that Richard Gere made me want to become an officer. Though a fine actor, he's not *that* good.

I'm guessing that the "wet nosed boys" thing was about me... so what about my comparitive lack of age makes me unfit to hold, and argue, an opinion on the matter?



Wayfarer said:


> If you can prove your "families" service for over 200 years to the US of A, I for one will be impressed.


In that, I exaggerated by fifty years. I can only go back to the 1840s. Longer in the service of the monarch of the United Kingdom and the Kaiser, but that's like apples and oranges.



Wayfarer said:


> And cars are meant for transportation, yet they kill more people every year than guns in the US. And anesthesia is meant as part of surgical procedures, yet it kills or mains thousands and thousands every year. Should we outlaw these?
> 
> Knives are meant to cut animal flesh. Do I need to drag up that reference I recently posted showing government stats that you are more likely to be killed through a stab wound than a gunshot wound. Should we outlaw knives, as they are designed to cut animal flesh?


No, for the reasons that I clearly stated before. To recap, because they are not meant for killing like a weapon is. Knives are already regulated by the Government, however, there isn't a article in the Constitution about needing a organized militia to own one as there is for a gun. I will concede that it is a good point and say that "knives are illegal and should be confiscated" is a really dumb position.



Wayfarer said:


> I am sorry, but with today's happenings, call me jaded, but I do not think someone on an anti-gun rant on the internet is headed into the armed forces, nor do I think you can trace over 200 years of family history in the service of the US. It is all just a bit too contrived.


Thanks for calling me a liar. It's exceedingly polite of you.


----------



## globetrotter

> Guns, be it rifles, shotguns, handguns or even cannons, are meant to kill. They are meant to kill animals or other people. That is the designated function. They are not meant to look pretty all oiled up on a wall. They are not meant to link you to your ancestors (and in this my father is guilty of owning a shotgun that's been in the family since the turn of the last century). Nor are they meant to make you feel like an adult in some sort of rite or passage thing. They are meant to kill.


excellent post. shows the type of maturity and leadership that we need in military officers. if I had to chose the type of officer that I would want my son to serve under, it would be this type.

gentlemen, this young man has chosen to put himself in harms way to protect your rights and freedoms. keep that in mind.


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> excellent post. shows the type of maturity and leadership that we need in military officers. if I had to chose the type of officer that I would want my son to serve under, it would be this type.
> 
> gentlemen, this young man has chosen to put himself in harms way to protect your rights and freedoms. keep that in mind.


Stating the obvious - 'guns are meant to kill animals and people' - shows maturity and leadership?

There are times when it is not only acceptible, but necessary to do both. These times are not reserved to military service with issued arms at the bequest and moral authority/responsibility of others. Being deemed capable and responsible to bare this oneself, is of course, a rite of passage to manhood. Alas, both giving and taking life are the ultimate acts of humanity. I do not feel the above referenced statements represent the maturity required to make these decisions for oneself or for others. YMMV, but he couldn't make them for me.

Secondly, it's totally illogical to propose a person can choose to protect that which he does not understand. He may have chosen to put himself in harm's way, but the reasoning seems less obvious - perhaps simply because it was 'expected' by his family. That might be noble in and of itself. Our country was founded on not only the right, but the obligation of the individual to look after his own rights and freedoms. This responsibility cannot be out-sourced to anyone (military, police, etc.). Our government is representative, not our freedom. The U.S. Military serves and protects the interests of the federal government of the United States of America, not the rights and freedoms of individuals (see U.S. Civil War). In point of fact, the military is expressly prohibited from participating in matters of the citizens of the United States on both public and private lands. I have the deepest respect for those who serve. I sincerely appreciate their service to the collective good which makes this Nation possible and my life what it is today. However, my individual freedom is mine. I owe it to none other than God and no other can take it. I wouldn't have what I have today without this Nation and those who have served it. However, on Thanksgiving, Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, etc., I'm thankful for what others truly gave me and do not need to invent things to be thankful for that they did not.

The first step to taking freedom from individuals is to convince them it's a collective right. Forgive me if I'm unwilling to 'play along' with even the most well-intentioned and honorable servants of the group think.

If one studies the historical record and the legal distinction between the right to keep and bear arms and the right to self-defense this is all abundantly clear. His interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is in error. The sad part is, the error is in his favor and he doesn't even know it. He shows no understanding or even awareness of Shay, Madison, Mason, et al.


----------



## JLibourel

globetrotter said:


> gentlemen, this young man has chosen to put himself in harms way to protect your rights and freedoms. keep that in mind.


Apparently all the while wishing to deprive us of a very precious right that our Founding Fathers regarded as the very foundation of freedom.

Moreover, our sailor boy is apparently ignorant, when he argues that guns are designed exclusively for killing, that a goodly percentage of firearms sold are not intended to kill anything animate--.22 and centerfire match rifles, target pistols, "race guns," silhouette rifles and pistols, shotguns for skeet, trap and sporting clays--the list goes on. Yes, they can be used to kill, but, then, no few people have been bludgeoned to death with Louisville Sluggers.


----------



## Kav

I can add firearms used in: scientific fieldwork tracking the projectiles flight for precise measurements, construction nail guns, 1917 Remington line throwing rifles used by the USCG, Flare pistols by people in distress , assorted tranquiliser rifles and pistols for wildlife work,athletic starter pistols, Cannons initiating collapse of snowpacks prone to avalanche and at one time seriously funded to launch orbital satellites ( whose canadian proponent went to work for the wrong people and wound up dead from his own techology in miniature.)I deeply resent this 'debate' even taking place. We have one poster who is there, has suffered personal loss. I feel honoured, and humbled he would take a moment to share with this forum. I've shared in past posts about my college friend Allison who comitted suicide with a small handgun. I taught Allie to shoot, with of all things an ERFURT Luger because it fit her hand superbly. It was another party, who, after I pleaded with them not to, acquired a french MAB .32 for her a year later. All my efforts to share the tremedous responsibilty of firearms was destroyed in a way I could never imagine. I was remembering, mourning and missing terribly Allison in her UC Santa Cruz sweatshirt and mohawk all day today. I empathise with our forum member's loss. I feel utterly no such communion with our other young speaker who knows everything, and has apparently experienced nothing.


----------



## Desk Jockey

ksinc said:


> Stating the obvious - 'guns are meant to kill animals and people' - shows maturity and leadership?
> 
> There are times when it is not only acceptible, but necessary to do both. These times are not reserved to military service with issued arms at the bequest and moral responsibility of others. Being deemed capable and responsible to bare this oneself, is of course, a rite of passage to manhood. Alas, both giving and taking life are the ultimate acts of humanity. I do not feel the above referenced statements represent the maturity required to make these decisions for oneself or for others. YMMV, but he couldn't make them for me.


You've a narrow view of the acts of Man if they begin and end with something we've been able to do since before we were this species.



> Secondly, it's totally illogical to propose a person can choose to protect that which he does not understand. He may have chosen to put himself in harm's way, but the reasoning seems less obvious - perhaps simply because it was 'expected' by his family. That might be noble in and of itself.


Must you try to debase my choice in vocation for the next 10 to 20 years by saying that I was obligated by my family to do so?



> Our country was founded on not only the right, but the obligation of the individual to look after his own rights and freedoms. This responsibility cannot be out-sourced to anyone (military, police, etc.).


I agree, but I don't see the right to bear arms as a right of the individual citizen. More on that later...



> Our government is representative, not our freedom. The U.S. Military serves and protects the interests of the federal government of the United States of America, not the rights and freedoms of individuals.


So I suppose that is wrong. Somebody should really give a heads up to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel.



> In point of fact, the military is expressly prohibited from participating in matters of the citizens of the United States on both public and private lands.


If by _Posse Comitatus_ you speak, then yes, the military is enjoined from operating to enforce the laws of the United States without martial law. If you mean that uniformed members of the armed forces are prohibited from participating in political activities, then yes. However, I as a citizen do not surrender my rights the moment I take the above oath. Rather, if I were to state all that I have previously in an official capacity as a spokesperson for the Navy I'd be thrown in jail (which I suspect my instructors would look down upon), but because I am acting as a private citizen I'm more than able to act "in matters of the citizens."



> I have the deepest respect for those who serve. I sincerely appreciate their service to the collective good which makes this Nation possible and my life what it is today. However, my individual freedom is mine. I owe it to none other than God and no other can take it. I wouldn't have what I have today without this Nation and those who have served it. However, on Thanksgiving, Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, etc., I'm thankful for what others truly gave me and do not need to invent things to be thankful for that they did not.


Thank you, and I once again agree: your rights and freedoms are yours, guaranteed by God in Heaven above and the Constitution here below. However, we disagree in the essential question over the right to bear arms.



> The first step to taking freedom from individuals is to convince them it's a collective right. Forgive me if I'm unwilling to 'play along' with even the most well-intentioned and honorable servants of the group think.


If you vote a party ticket, or indeed for anyone listed as a member of a party, then you're playing along with that dreaded "group think." Trust me, I worked with, and had as colleagues for the other side of the aisle, the folks to come up with that group think (or, talking points if you want to get more into the "sausage" part of the game).



> If one studies the historical record and the legal distinction between the right to keep and bear arms and the right to self-defense this is all abundantly clear. His interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is in error. The sad part is the error is in his favor and he doesn't even know it. He shows no knowledge of Shay, Madison, et al.


I have, what with being a history and political science major. Shay, as in the anti-tax rebellion?

Never-the-less, guess what, here's the full text:



Philadelphia Convention said:


> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Now I know that modern readers have trouble with multiple dependent clauses in sentences, but this is pretty easy. A militia is an important. Militias need guns. People are in militias. People need guns for militias. We can't ban guns. That last bit is the part that every one has trouble with. They don't get that it can't exist independent of the first four parts. So, instead, we get:



Anti Gun Control groups said:


> the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


That's wrong. The general citizenry thought it was wrong, too. While yes, the right to keep a family gun for hunting was recognized, the right to protect the security of the State by the individual citizen was not. That is until the late 1860s. After the nation figured out that having independent bands of armed young men running about the countryside *wasn't* a good thing, militias began to fade away. However, as the Constitution didn't change, the perceptions of the people did. A general _carte blanche_ attitude about gun ownership lasted until the 1960's with the Gun Control Act of 1968 which banned assault rifles and machine guns. What am I saying with this? That we're still bound by the textual thought, the words of the Constitution.

What is it with the strict constructionists (not to call you, ksinc one of them) that they have so much of a hard time keeping with their mantra went the 2nd Amendment is discussed?


----------



## Desk Jockey

JLibourel said:


> .22 and centerfire match rifles,


.22s can kill, .22s have killed a couple score of people probably within the last decade alone. Fun fact, while not a rifle, the suspect (I strain to use that word given that he killed and wounded over 60 people today) used a .22 pistol.



> target pistols,


Still a gun, a small one, but still a gun


> "race guns,"


doesn't fire a bullet


> silhouette rifles and pistols,


Still a gun, and one at least larger than 6mm


> shotguns for skeet, trap and sporting clays


still a gun, and the least single-purpose of all the above


> Louisville Sluggers.


It's a bat, a baseball bat. Common sense would dictate it used primarily for playing baseball (something the Nationals need desperately to figure out)



Kav said:


> I can add firearms used in:





> scientific fieldwork tracking the projectiles flight for precise measurements,


Really far out of left field, but still a gun


> construction nail guns,


Building houses, not ending lives


> 1917 Remington line throwing rifles used by the USCG,


Used by the *Coast Guard*, a uniformed service of the United States- like the Border Patrol or your local police force


> Flare pistols by people in distress ,


Not a gun, rather a *flare gun*


> assorted tranquiliser rifles and pistols for wildlife work,


Again, not a gun. Also not meant to be lethal


> athletic starter pistols,


Like race guns above, no bullet


> Cannons initiating collapse of snowpacks prone to avalanche


Yes, it's a gun. Hooray! You've found a flaw in my gun/not gun argument. However, this isn't a cannon owned by Jim-Bob and Larry of the slopes. No, I'm pretty sure that those cannons are used by the USGS or the state's version thereof.



> and at one time seriously funded to launch orbital satellites ( whose canadian proponent went to work for the wrong people and wound up dead from his own techology in miniature.)


Killed by the Israelis with a gun in Belgium because he sold to Saddam.



> I deeply resent this 'debate' even taking place. We have one poster who is there, has suffered personal loss. I feel honoured, and humbled he would take a moment to share with this forum.


And I've sent condolences to both him and the family of the person I knew.



> I've shared in past posts about my college friend Allison who comitted suicide with a small handgun. I taught Allie to shoot, with of all things an ERFURT Luger because it fit her hand superbly. It was another party, who, after I pleaded with them not to, acquired a french MAB .32 for her a year later. All my efforts to share the tremedous responsibilty of firearms was destroyed in a way I could never imagine. I was remembering, mourning and missing terribly Allison in her UC Santa Cruz sweatshirt and mohawk all day today. I empathise with our forum member's loss.


As well, I'm sorry for your loss. Suicide is by far one of the most terrible of events that can happen to a family, both of kin and by kind. The father of a former girlfriend of mine was, after he retired from the police at the age of 45, a security guard at a movie theater. He, and the night manager, was shot from mere inches away over the $7,000 in the deposit box. The memory of the sound of her voice in the middle of the night and the shock of seeing the crime scene where I had spent many an evening on the news the following day still haunts me.



> I feel utterly no such communion with our other young speaker who knows everything, and has apparently experienced nothing.


At no point did I, in any manner or method, state my being an authority on any matter discussed tonight. For all the reason that I disagree with you, I haven't any sort of idea about the world. Strikes me as that's some flawed logic, there.


----------



## Desk Jockey

Reading over all of this, I fear that I've come off as something of an absolutist. This was not my intent. Looking at the 2nd Amendment, the meaning is clearly military arms. The very use of the word arms (from the Latin _arma_) implies a weapon carried upon the arm of a soldier. Military grade weapons in the hands of the individual citizen are the root, I think, of the problem. As time has passed, so have the implements of war advanced. High-capacity handguns, assault rifles and other high caliber weapons are by default in this day and age military weapons. It is these that the Government should not only regulate, but indeed, remove from the public-at-large.

These weapons, outside of law enforcement, agencies of the Government and uniformed services of the same, have no intrinsic need on the part of the citizen, and a great deal of inherent danger to others, to possess. A senator from North Dakota with who's office I worked regularly once said, "if you need an M14 to go hunting, try fishing." To me it's not a compunction on my part to expand the power of the State or some sort of psychotic desire to symbolically emasculate millions, but common sense. Common sense that could have saved the pain of so very many yesterday and on into the past.


----------



## android

There's a comma. It's a list. Unlike youngsters educated in today's school system (about to enter military service?), the writers of the 2nd amendment knew what a comma meant. They were well educated in the language.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It is a list of rights that shall not be infringed. Two items.

Your "belief" does not change the English language.


----------



## Desk Jockey

It's not a list. When the founders wrote a list it had semicolons. Were it a set of closely related rights, which it's not, there'd be a semicolon between the first two clauses and the last two separating the right to a militia and the right to bear arms. In other words, it'd look a whole lot more like the 1st (establishment, exercise, speech, assembly and redress), 5th (Grand Jury, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, due process and eminent domain) and 6th (speedy & public, jury trial, notice, confrontation and counsel) Amendments. Instead, it's of the same single right with multiple clauses structure as the 8th, 9th and 10th Amendments. Left out the 4th and 7th Amendments as they pertain to a single action and the rules governing them (search and seizure and juries for civil trials, respectively).

Sure my beliefs don't change the English language, but it does help to read the bloody thing.

In some printings, the third comma is omitted. In that case, the Amendment is even more straightforward: organized militias, why (because it's good), how (folks keep their guns and join the militia).


----------



## yachtie

Before you get too deep into this argument, Maybe you should read what the DC Circuit has to say on the subject:



Also subject of a thread here.


----------



## Desk Jockey

And the two in the majority were appointed by Presidents Reagan and the latter Bush.

It's also a pretty major topic of discussion in the District. An excellent example of a one off decision made by a court without the backing of their. Mind you, the dissenting member's, Judge Henderson, argument was pretty batty, and I paraphrase: "DC's not a state, so nothing with the word state in it applies." Which is all fine and dandy but for the that the Constitution affects both the Federal Government (of which DC is an organ) and after the 14th Amendment, the States and the citizenry.


----------



## globetrotter

I can't speak for DJ, but I can restate my own opinion, which I have stated here any number of times. 

1. lets, for a second, say that the right to have any type of possible weapon you want is guaranteed by the constitution, lets say. that doen'st make you any less of an american for having less weapons than every single weapon your income will allow. you don't have to have a cannon, or a granade launcher, or an M-16, in order to be a good american. lets say that you have the right to have any of these, for the moment - you can choose not to. 

2. in my opinion, you should have the weapons that you need. if you hunt, by all means get the tools you need to hunt. if you feel that you are faced with a risk that requires you to have a 9mm semi automatic hand gun, by all means, get one. 

3. guns, when they fall into the wrong hands, can be bad. so, in my opinion, 1 gun is better than 2, 2 is better than 3, etc. if you really need a firearm, get exactly what you need, and no more. not because the law mandates it, but because that is the right thing to do. 

4. now, back to the right - I am no scholor of the constitution. but I have always understood that the right to keep and bear arms is part of the right to serve in a militia. that fits in with the historical reality of the time, and it seems to fit the language. in any event, I wonder if KSINC and JL chose to exersize this part of their right to keep and bear arms? it seems to me, that if this is a list, two seperate parts of the right, not nessasarily dependent one on the other, that a person who took the second part of the right so seriously would also choose to serve in a militia.


----------



## yachtie

Desk Jockey said:


> And the two in the majority were appointed by Presidents Reagan and the latter Bush.


So? What difference does that make? The opinion was well done.

A point needs to be made that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to quell the concerns of the Anti-federalists that the new Federal government would garner too much power and become tyranical. That's the reasoning behind why the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not a collective one. The concerns around an overarching federal Government remain today.


----------



## Desk Jockey

yachtie said:


> So? What difference does that make? The opinion was well done.


To wit I respond that they had a prior agenda and exercised a bit of judicial activism... but that is simply in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?



> A point needs to be made that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to quell the concerns of the Anti-federalists that the new Federal government would garner too much power and become tyranical. That's the reasoning behind why the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not a collective one. The concerns around an overarching federal Government remain today.


It's a view held by few other circuits... one other, to be exact. Based near completely on research from the NRA and the Cato Institute. One group seeks to expand gun ownership propriety be damned and the other to practice libertarianism that's, on a good day, just barely outside of anarcho-capitalism.

Sure, it's, if you want to play it that way, an individual right--an individual right predicated upon membership in a state organized militia.

If you feel worried about the abuse of power by the government, join your state's State Defense Force (or like named equivalent).


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> 4. now, back to the right - I am no scholor of the constitution. but I have always understood that the right to keep and bear arms is part of the right to serve in a militia. that fits in with the historical reality of the time, and it seems to fit the language. in any event, I wonder if KSINC and JL chose to exersize this part of their right to keep and bear arms? it seems to me, that if this is a list, two seperate parts of the right, not nessasarily dependent one on the other, that a person who took the second part of the right so seriously would also choose to serve in a militia.


Sidenote: My previous point was that if my personal freedom is infringed I highly doubt the U.S. Marines are going to come to my aid. I think they should, but they won't. Strangely, when I was in the U.S. Consulate in St. Petersburg, the Marines there would come to your aid. It was an odd reality to have to go to Russia to receive the protection of U.S. Forces.

(for Globetrotter, in point of fact, I have openly served in a Militia, until they were outlawed by my State in an act of outright stupidity. Thanks for caring, but your point is misguided and wrongheaded. And; you know that I told you before both my Father and GrandFather were Army. FTR, I have relatives that are serving currently as both enlisted and Officers and we have two cops. See below & you don't need to be a scholar, just be able to walk to a library and read.  )

My later point was missed by the fact that no one here apparently has read anything by Madison & Mason on the 2nd Amendment, nor heard of Shay (see Shay' Rebellion).

As I hinted, the problem is the 2nd Amendment supports the anti's position they are just too lazy to actually read and understand it. Indeed our guest has no clue. The 2nd Amendment cannot be read (nor the U.S. Constitution) arguing over comma's and the order of words. It was a compromise of negotiations. To know what it meant you have to read those negotiations and understand the positions of those participating. I left the NRA because of these exact BS lies they told about the 2nd Amendment. I won't support an obvious falsehood, even when it supports my position.

It's abundantly clear from even a cursory study, the 2nd Amendment in context had NOTHING to do with the right of individuals to self-defense or arms of an individual. The 2nd Amendment had to do with how the Militia would be provided for, by the Federal government or the States and was the result of the politics at the time. #1 Shay's Rebellion and #2 the rejection of many of a large federal standing army. Even Washington agreed with this as the General who lobbied for the first standing army. They actually discussed the quality of arms. Private arms where much higher quality than what some states were providing their troops. There were also real issues of production. The entire industrial capacity of the young country COULD NOT provide sufficient arms. Individuals and States could buy foreign arms in many cases where the central government could not. These men were trying to forge and protect a nation. Unfortunately, they took it for granted that if someone tried to rob them they could fight back. Afterall, they had just fought a war. Read the Declaration of Indepence for a window into the natural law, common law viewpoint of the Founders.

Very interestingly, both Madison and Mason not only wrote, but voted SEVERAL TIMES against the right of individuals to carry concealed weapons (pistols and knives). There has always been a legal distinction made between SD and RKBA and CCW.

The right of an individual to self-defense and the means to do so stems from natural law and the English common law. And the founders never even considered it controversial enough nor necessary to mention in the negotiation of jurisdiction between the Federal and State. Even those that did not agree on concealed weapons felt it was clearly obvious a free man had the right to defend himself and to keep the means to do so. Any argument(s) centered on the right of a man to 'secretly' take those weapons on his person outside of his home. Read some Jefferson.

The rights to self-defense and the rights to K&BA are delineated by the States and reserved for individuals.

Selections from my State Constitution - Florida -



> Preamble PREAMBLE
> 
> We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution.
> 
> Article I "Declaration of Rights"
> 
> SECTION 2. Basic rights.--All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.
> 
> SECTION 8. Right to bear arms.--
> (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
> 
> (b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.


If that's is unclear for anyone, please let me come to your aid. I have a basic, civil right granted by Almight God to defend myself and to keep and bear arms for that express purpose that does not stem from the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED by the Federal Government. If you live in California or Washington, DC - I suggest you move to a free State.

The truth is, you can do whatever you want with the 2nd Amendment. It's meaningless today. We have already trashed it by having the large Federal standing army we have. You may thank Abraham Lincoln, nothing more than a common liar, scoundrel and a traitor. When people quit being citizens of States and the United States is when the problems began.

Long after the U.S. Constitution has been forgotten, I will still have and maintain my natural and common law rights, and my rights as a Citizen of the State of Florida. Argue about commas, militias and anything else you want. I think the language contained therein is rather plain and bold, so go bug someone else 

This is not an insult and not directed to any one person: Please, Please in the name of God and for the good of us all - turn off the TVs, put down the political literature and go read some history - Do you even have a State Consitution? Have you read it? What does it say about your right to self-defense? Wouldn't that seem important?

"Free your mind and the rest will follow." 

back to Globetrotter, I remain dismayed that someone (our guest and I'm wondering about you) that doesn't understand my rights and freedom is supposed to protect my rights and freedom or that I might actually need to be reminded to "keep that in mind." Keep that in mind? The awareness of the attack on my rights and freedom by even those who serve is both constant and saddening. Thanks to God, my faith is not in them.

Again, I'm thankful for the service of those to the Union. However, what that creates is something above the baseline. It does not create the baseline. Is that something good, wonderful and worth honoring and protecting? Yes. However, lets not lose sight of the "basics". Those that serve in the Military are protecting the collective, not individuals. Apparently, in this case, and rather sadly, the blind are leading the blind.


----------



## yachtie

Desk Jockey said:


> To wit I respond that they had a prior agenda and exercised a bit of judicial activism... but that is simply in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?


Especially if one doesn't like the result.



> It's a view held by few other circuits... one other, to be exact. Based near completely on research from the NRA and the Cato Institute. One group seeks to expand gun ownership propriety be damned and the other to practice libertarianism that's, on a good day, just barely outside of anarcho-capitalism.
> 
> Sure, it's, if you want to play it that way, an individual right--an individual right predicated upon membership in a state organized militia.
> 
> If you feel worried about the abuse of power by the government, join your state's State Defense Force (or like named equivalent).


You sure you don't work for Handgun Control Inc.? :icon_smile_wink:

I posit you have it reversed. Membership in a Militia is predicated on the individual right to keep and bear arms. Remember, the Militia did not supply weapons to its members. Having relatives that had to live through life in Germany in the '30's and '40's, it's clearly remembered that the first thing that was done was the banning of the private posession of firearms.

Pretty telling isn't it?


----------



## ksinc

yachtie said:


> I posit you have it reversed. Membership in a Militia is predicated on the individual right to keep and bear arms. Remember, the Militia did not supply weapons to its members. Having relatives that had to live through life in Germany in the '30's and '40's, it's clearly remembered that the first thing that was done was the banning of the private posession of firearms.
> 
> Pretty telling isn't it?


Ok, not everyone! Three cheers for Yachtie!


----------



## Wayfarer

Gentlemen:










If you do not know a troll for a troll by now! I mean, let us look at things. First of all, "Desk Jockey" as a title for military man? I think we all can figure out his true employment. He waits for yesterday to make his Interchange debut, a rather confrontational anti-gun rant in a long term thread on owning a pistol. He tries to establish his _bona fides_ by telling us his "families" "centuries" of service to the US, then extends that to the UK and Kaiser's Germany. Any evidence brought to his attention that is contrary to his opinion, in typical liberal fashion, is immediately marginalized, i.e.



Desk Jockey said:


> And the two in the majority were appointed by Presidents Reagan and the latter Bush.


So apparently judges appointed by a Republican POTUS are not real judges. He even tosses the accusation of judicial activism, something liberal judges are famed for, at the ones he disagrees with.

I think clearly, what we need to keep in mind is:


----------



## NewYorkBuck

Just remember......guns dont kill people.......bullets kill people.....


----------



## Desk Jockey

I had a much longer post, but I really must get to writing that paper eventually. Suffice it so say: the State of Florida has had since 1838 a provision for bearing arms. From statehood to 1865, this was tied with the phrase "common defense." As little as you might like to admit it, the provenance of those words was most likely the preamble of the US Constitution (though Schoolhouse Rock would have been a great also ran, I suppose). In that paragraph, "common defense" means armed organized militias. Later, the post-Reconstruction Constitution of 1868 allowed for the right to bear arms in "in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State." (emphasis mine). This language lasted until 1885 when tacked on at the end was this clause: "but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne."

The section that you quoted above, in that form, only existed after 1968 in response to the Gun Control Act (and I suspect a bit of fear of the riots) of the same year. Even then, the State of Florida reserved the right the to regulate the manner of bearing arms. In the example that you cited, there isn't a carpet allowance for any and all weapons under Heaven.

To answer your question, yes I have a copy of the Constitution of the "Free State" sitting on my desk a mere foot away. It was from when I, in high school, worked in Annapolis. Art. 28 of the Declaration of Rights states that "That a well regulated Militia is the proper and natural defense of a free Government."

A constitution, federal of state, must like every law be read with the full intent of the meanings of the words and the relationship between those words and the structure of the document as a whole. Without, confusion rears it's ugly head.

Yachtie- if any one of the gun control groups actually paid their interns I'd be there before you could list the definitions of an assault weapon (which, I'm guessing, would be a requirement for being in their employ). Screw K Street, I'd far rather take cash than yet more bloody credits.


----------



## Desk Jockey

Wayfarer said:


> If you do not know a troll for a troll by now! I mean, let us look at things. First of all, "Desk Jockey" as a title for military man? I think we all can figure out his true employment.


Most naval officers do sit at desks. At a base, a desk. At sea, a desk. I'd hazard a guess that indeed the majority of officers, commissioned and not, sit at some point in a desk. What then is my "true employment"? Keep in mind that my lies must have been planned far, far in advance as in November of last year I had posted a comment about Brooks selling Dress Blues and my hope to purchase them when May 08 rolls around. I mean that is aside from having been a mid since Aug 04 and in ROTC the four year prior during high school.



> He waits for yesterday to make his Interchange debut, a rather confrontational anti-gun rant in a long term thread on owning a pistol.


I've posted before in the Interchange. And forgive if I missed something, but this thread has been about the right to bear arms and the conflicting desire to tightly regulate them since post #2. Indeed since it's resurrection earlier this month there has still been a competing viewpoint.



> He tries to establish his _bona fides_ by telling us his "families" "centuries" of service to the US, then extends that to the UK and Kaiser's Germany. Any evidence brought to his attention that is contrary to his opinion, in typical liberal fashion, is immediately marginalized, i.e.


Sad that I didn't catch that typo, c'est la vie. I established my _bona fides_ because something makes me think otherwise I would have been maligned far, far sooner.



> So apparently judges appointed by a Republican POTUS are not real judges. He even tosses the accusation of judicial activism, something liberal judges are famed for, at the ones he disagrees with.


No, never said that. They are real judges, confirmed by the Senate in 1985, 1990 and 2005. I made a point of of the term "judicial activism" because it is precisely what that ruling was. The judges, Messrs Silberman and Griffith, went against the grain of the consensus of their peers to introduce partisan politics into the judiciary. Is that not the definition of judicial activism?

I do give you points for the first ad hominem attack. You put up a valiant effort.


----------



## Wayfarer

Desk Jockey said:


> I've posted before in the Interchange.





Desk Jockey said:


> Though I am, and will remain ardently till my last breath, a Democrat...


You are correct, you have posted on the Interchange before. I admit my error.



Desk Jockey said:


> I do give you points for the first ad hominem attack. You put up a valiant effort.


Actually, I do not think my attack is ad hom. I am not calling you names, insulting you, etc., basically just laying out what I deem to be a very suspect situation. I can see how it could be viewed as ad hom, but really it is not meant to be. I am making the case that you are an opportunist with an agenda and are attempting to capitalize on a tragedy to score points.

Also, with a thread this long, I sincerely doubt we have gone this long without at least one ad hom, so I doubt if I can take the honor of "first"!


----------



## JLibourel

yachtie said:


> Having relatives that had to live through life in Germany in the '30's and '40's, it's clearly remembered that the first thing that was done was the banning of the private posession of firearms.
> 
> Pretty telling isn't it?


That is not exactly true. The Nazi gun control laws were passed in 1937. I believe they have remained essentially unchanged for modern Germany, which has about a 10% rate of household gun ownership.

In point of fact, Nazi Germany had a thriving sporting arms industry even through the early years of World War II. Interestingly, throughout the war, the German gun industry produced substantial numbers of guns for civilian sale, unlike the U.S. gun industry. Private ownership of firearms remained widespread, and huge numbers of privately owned firearms were seized by the victorious allies and either destroyed or taken homeward as booty.

While not wishing to come across as an apologist for the cruel Nazis, who certainly have enough to answer for, I think there is a big difference between the Nazis and the modern anti-gun movement. The latter proceed from a social-pacifist intellectual basis and find the whole idea of private ownership of firearms inherently abhorrent, regarding them in much the same light as most people do child pornography. The Nazis, who were anything but pacifists, believed in gun control, not confiscation. They had no objection to private ownership of guns just as long as the guns were in the hands of the "right" people.


----------



## ksinc

Desk Jockey said:


> I had a much longer post, but I really must get to writing that paper eventually. Suffice it so say: the State of Florida has had since 1838 a provision for bearing arms. From statehood to 1865, this was tied with the phrase "common defense." As little as you might like to admit it, the provenance of those words was most likely the preamble of the US Constitution (though Schoolhouse Rock would have been a great also ran, I suppose). In that paragraph, "common defense" means armed organized militias. Later, the post-Reconstruction Constitution of 1868 allowed for the right to bear arms in "in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State." (emphasis mine). This language lasted until 1885 when tacked on at the end was this clause: "but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne."
> 
> The section that you quoted above, in that form, only existed after 1968 in response to the Gun Control Act (and I suspect a bit of fear of the riots) of the same year. Even then, the State of Florida reserved the right the to regulate the manner of bearing arms. In the example that you cited, there isn't a carpet allowance for any and all weapons under Heaven.
> 
> To answer your question, yes I have a copy of the Constitution of the "Free State" sitting on my desk a mere foot away. It was from when I, in high school, worked in Annapolis. Art. 28 of the Declaration of Rights states that "That a well regulated Militia is the proper and natural defense of a free Government."
> 
> A constitution, federal of state, must like every law be read with the full intent of the meanings of the words and the relationship between those words and the structure of the document as a whole. Without, confusion rears it's ugly head.
> 
> Yachtie- if any one of the gun control groups actually paid their interns I'd be there before you could list the definitions of an assault weapon (which, I'm guessing, would be a requirement for being in their employ). Screw K Street, I'd far rather take cash than yet more bloody credits.


You are correct in that the Florida Constitution has been revised and amende extensively. However, either you didn't or can't read it. You seem to report only what you read someone said about it.

Constitution of 1838:



> That the great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:
> 
> Section 1. That all freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal; and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation; and of pursuing their own happiness.
> 
> Section 21. That the free white men of this State shall have the right to keep and to bear arms, for their common defense.


Common defense means militias? It might interest you to know that the 'milita' reading was used as an original intent defense and definitely debunked when the milita disbandment was ordered. "Their common defense" means, their meaning the free white men, common as in normal, plain and defense as in defense  Common defense does not mean collective and/or organized. In fact, it means just about the total opposite. It was expressly provided that the citizens of Florida never had and do not have a right to an organized citizen militia, but DO have the individual right to K&BA specificly for their own defense. In fact, the historic Florida Militias required "signing-up" and every man was not inherently part of the militia.

Further, the relevant form I quote above was introduced in *1868* not *1968* and has no relationship to the Gun Control Act.



> Section 22. The people shall have the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State.


You can read all about it here

The 1968 version does add the regulation stipulation (perhaps to distinquish there was no contradiction between the GCA and the Florida Constitution) which was as I already stated in previous posts a long-standing understanding of most regarding the role of state government and the balance of natural and common law including Washington, Jefferson, Mason, and Madison.



> Section 8. Right to Bear Arms. The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.


I never disputed the right of a State to regulate arms.

I'm glad you now see that laws must be read in their context. Why don't you do that with the 2nd Amendment instead of arguing semantics and commas?


----------



## Desk Jockey

Quite right, I meant the first direct attack on me.

You don't see being called a liar an insult?

With whom would I score points? Do you think I have any compunction to say to my friends and co-workers, "hey guys, come over here and look at these posts I made on a clothing forum on the internet." I fear that after that disclosure, I'd be tarred and feathered, if not literally then certainly symbolically.

Were I truly to be an opportunist actively professing an agenda (which every citizen should have), I'd be at work getting fired from my internship at my very right-wing lobbyist's office because I was bellowing from the roof tops, though I think the Secret Service bubbas up there would dispatch me far sooner and with far more finality.


----------



## Wayfarer

Desk Jockey said:


> With whom would I score points?


Against the people on this thread you disagree with of course; I thought that would be apparent. Please do not now tell us how "what people here think does not matter" or some other disclaimer, as if it were true, you would not have picked this time, this place, and spent so much time battling your point.



Desk Jockey said:


> Were I truly to be an opportunist actively professing an agenda (which every citizen should have), I'd be at work getting fired from my internship at my very right-wing lobbyist's office because I was bellowing from the roof tops, though I think the Secret Service bubbas up there would dispatch me far sooner and with far more finality.


One could say that taking an internship that benefits one, from people he obviously is diametrically opposed to (ardent Democrat until the last breath I think), is being an opportunist. In fact, it seems to be a prevalent character trait of yours.


----------



## ksinc

Desk Jockey said:


> Were I truly to be an opportunist actively professing an agenda (which every citizen should have), I'd be at work getting fired from my internship at my very right-wing lobbyist's office because I was bellowing from the roof tops, though I think the Secret Service bubbas up there would dispatch me far sooner and with far more finality.


So, you're not un-educated or mis-informed, you're just a self-admitted sell out?

I'm confused - is this a defense or a confession?


----------



## Desk Jockey

Wayfarer said:


> Against the people on this thread you disagree with of course; I thought that would be apparent. Please do not now tell us how "what people here think does not matter" or some other disclaimer, as if it were true, you would not have picked this time, this place, and spent so much time battling your point.


In a way, it doesn't matter. You'll continue read my posts and make back backhanded remarks and "observations." It it rather apparent that I'm getting nowhere quick with this crowd, though I suspect that more than a few denizens of the forum have, of late, taken a look.



> One could say that taking an internship that benefits one, from people he obviously is diametrically opposed to (ardent Democrat until the last breath I think), is being an opportunist. In fact, it seems to be a prevalent character trait of yours.


Remind me, in which topic did I state my party preferences?

And do you know me, sir, so well after so short a time as to have pegged a substantial character trait with such relative ease. Or, was this deduction based in the whole upon my disagreement?



ksinc said:


> So, you're not un-educated or mis-informed, you're just a self-admitted sell out?
> 
> I'm confused - is this a defense or a confession?


I don't quite see how you'd get to un-educated or mis-informed... makes it sound as though I tripped and woke up into this job.

Neither, I wanted to "see how the other half lived." A position in the more moderate friend of the office came up, I applied and was accepted. His partner is the aforementioned fellow. I wanted to see for myself what really the lobbyist's world was like.


----------



## ksinc

Desk Jockey said:


> I don't quite see how you'd get to un-educated or mis-informed... makes it sound as though I tripped and woke up into this job.


I said, "so, you're NOT un-educated or mis-informed."

You're not very black & white for a future military man


----------



## Desk Jockey

ksinc said:


> You are correct in that the Florida Constitution has been revised and amende extensively. However, either you didn't or can't read it. You seem to report only what you read someone said about it.
> 
> Constitution of 1838:
> 
> Common defense means militias? It might interest you to know that the 'milita' reading was used as an original intent defense and definitely debunked when the milita disbandment was ordered. "Their common defense" means, their meaning the free white men, common as in normal, plain and defense as in defense  Common defense does not mean collective and/or organized. In fact, it means just about the total opposite. It was expressly provided that the citizens of Florida never had and do not have a right to an organized citizen militia, but DO have the individual right to K&BA specificly for their own defense. In fact, the historic Florida Militias required "signing-up" and every man was not inherently part of the militia.


Every militia in every state required the citizen to sign up. That's what made it regulated. The unregulated militia was entered into upon the age of majority. When was the Florida Militia disbanded? Are you talking about after the Civil War?



> Further, the relevant form I quote above was introduced in *1868* not *1968* and has no relationship to the Gun Control Act.


What you quoted on the last page was, and in this I assumed, the current 1968 version. The 1868 Constitution has nothing to do with the Gun Control Act of 1968.



> I'm glad you now see that laws must be read in their context. Why don't you do that with the 2nd Amendment instead of arguing semantics and commas?


What context? It allows for well regulated militias. That's what it says. Semantics and grammar simply prove what the words mean. Please tell me where it states without any exceptions with which what "context" I should be reading into it.


----------



## Desk Jockey

ksinc said:


> I said, "so, you're NOT un-educated or mis-informed."
> 
> You're not very black & white for a future military man


Yeah, I just didn't quite know how you got there to move away from it.

Thank you, I suppose.


----------



## ksinc

Desk Jockey said:


> What context? It allows for well regulated militias. That's what it says. Semantics and grammar simply prove what the words mean. Please tell me where it states without any exceptions with which what "context" I should be reading into it.





Desk Jockey said:


> Yeah, I just didn't quite know how you got there to move away from it.
> 
> Thank you, I suppose.


The way I got there? The way I got there is, you are totally wrong and in error and can't even defend a correct argument with historical accuracy. 

Good grief! Ok, you seem like a reasonably intelligent guy, but good Lord what did they fill your head with?

What context? Go back and read the first long post I posted.

Quit arguing against what you think my position is and regurgitating what you were told/taught. Educate yourself. I repeat "educate yourself". That is not an insult/attack. That does not mean go get an education (you seem to have one), it means really educate yourself rather than accept the pablum that substitutes for education today. Read something that isn't in a textbook as someone's biased opinion, but is historical record as written by Madison or Mason or Jefferson themselves on the subject. Don't conjecture based on two sentences and what some hippie lawyer wants you to believe they mean. Go read what the guy that actually negotiated them and the guy that wrote them and the guy who begged for them all agreed and said they mean. Wouldn't that make more sense? Especially, if you are going to make a career out of killing people and getting people killed over it?

I said twice the 2nd Amendment supports your view, but you don't know why. I never said anything about no exceptions. What are you smoking? I said the 2nd Amendment is dead, obsolete, and has no bearing on the right of individuals to K&BA for self defense or any other reason. It's about the conflict between providing arms for MILITIAS or the STANDING ARMY. Did you go look up anything on Shay's? Do you have any idea at all what I am talking about? It sure appears you do not. It was largely about economics, scarce resouces and WHERE they should go.

The whole concept that the 2nd Amendment is the right that protects all others is the biggest crock of crap ever told. The 2nd Amendment never had anything to do with the natural rights and common law rights of individuals to K&BA or defend themselves. It neither protects nor infringes on those rights. It couldn't - those rights are INALIENABLE and BESTOWED BY OUR CREATOR.

I'm not even sure you know what 'well regulated' really means. It's clear you think you do. Go read what Washington wanted and thought the nation required from the States to survive before and AFTER Shay's. Did you know he had a fundamental change of heart? It's all out there. Read it.

Again, it's dismaying to me that we actually send young men out to die for something we don't even bother to teach them the REAL HISTORY and meaning of. And then; I'm supposed to "be reminded" to respect the absolute mockery of My freedom that makes. Trust me, I never forget. I blame the politicians and the teachers who both know (or should know History). It's disgusting quite frankly.


----------



## Laxplayer

ksinc said:


> I said, "so, you're NOT un-educated or mis-informed."
> 
> You're not very black & white for a future military man


I don't feel that DJ's belief that citizens should not be armed disqualifies him from being a good Navy officer. I know plenty of cops that feel the same way...keep the guns in the hands of those meant to protect. His beliefs aside, he will still be serving our country.


----------



## Wayfarer

Desk Jockey said:


> Remind me, in which topic did I state my party preferences?


Gladly. I also quoted it above too. "Ardently...Democrat" per your own words.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=63509

Cheers


----------



## yachtie

JLibourel said:


> They had no objection to private ownership of guns just as long as the guns were in the hands of the "right" people.


Family history had shown that, at least in the minds of the Nazis, we were not the "right" people- and therein lies the danger. Those in power will always have access to the means to preserve it-justly or unjustly.


----------



## ksinc

yachtie said:


> Family history had shown that, at least in the minds of the Nazis, we were not the "right" people- and therein lies the danger. Those in power will always have access to the means to preserve it-justly or unjustly.


Well said. It's pretty embarassing to have to defend one's moral rights with a sentence that begins "all free white men" too.

Man has done some pretty stupid things.


----------



## ksinc

Laxplayer said:


> I don't feel that DJ's belief that citizens should not be armed disqualifies him from being a good Navy officer. I know plenty of cops that feel the same way...keep the guns in the hands of those meant to protect. His beliefs aside, he will still be serving our country.


The Navy protects citizens? How? From what? I was once mugged in downtown Atlanta - where was the Navy? When we had someone attempt to climb over our fence, should I have contacted the Pentagon instead of arming myself and calling 911? I'm sure if my property was guarded by US Marines no one would dare to challenge them, but they are not made available for my personal protections.

The police, do, sometimes, act to protect citizens. Mostly, sadly, today, they just file after-action reports at the bequest of city lawyers.

Your comment shows a total lack of the fairness/comprehension of my point. Yes, he will be serving the government of our Country. That's a good thing. It has nothing to do with protecting my individual rights and freedom, however. Which was the case that was made.

DJ might make an excellent Naval Officer, but not for the reasons stated in this thread. Regardless of the field, leadership requires making clear distinctions and difficult decisions.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

Given that the post count per page on Style Forum is less than half of what we maintain here (15 vs. 40) I hope you gentlemen realize that this 27 page 665 post thread is longer than the famous (infamous) Black Suit Thread.

To bear ... or to be bare? That is the question.

So. Have we reached a conclusion yet?

:devil:

I'll remind y'all again at the 1331st post.​


----------



## JLibourel

Desk Jockey said:


> ["race guns"]
> doesn't fire a bullet
> 
> Like race guns above, no bullet


Just for your enlightenment, DJ, you seem to be under the misapprehension that a "race gun" is synonymous with a "starter pistol." This far from the case.
"Race guns" is a somewhat slangy, imprecise term for extremely customized pistols, usually but not always of the 1911 pattern, for shooting at extreme speed in competitions like USPSA/IPSC, Steel Challenge, Bowling Pin matches and the like. They do indeed shoot bullets.

I am not necessarily faulting you for your ignorance of this one, but it has been my observation that, by and large, people's hostility to the private ownership of firearms is in inverse ratio to their knowledge of firearms.

You seem to miss my point that a large percentage of firearms are sold exclusively for use on inanimate objects like paper targets or clay birds. You dismiss it on the grounds that they can be "used to kill." Well, of course, just as the Louisville Slugger can be used to bludgeon or my wife's kitchen knives can be used to stab somebody. The fact of the matter is that no man of sense is going to buy an Olympic free pistol or a .22 match rifle to kill anybody or anything when much more efficient weapons for the job can be readily had, usually for less money.


----------



## 16412

Desk Jockey I find your education is rather incomplete. For example, The Bill Of Rights- are these the only rights? Do you know the history of making of the Bill Of Rights? Do you know that there are other rights? These other rights are equal to the ones listed in the Bill Of rights. In the other rights includes gun ownership. Technically I don't even see anywhere that says the government can even know what guns you own, except for the ones they demand you own. Why? Because we are not owned by the government, nor collective nonsence you mentioned (which is stealing).

Another problem I have with people like you, is, bravery and liberty go together, and your not brave. Brave people aren't afraid people have guns. Since brave people are not afraid there can't be a reason to take away any liberty, such as- gun ownership.

You are rather wet behind the ears- Your faith in Law enforcement, prosecutors, judges and law makers is terrible. There are books and books and books on these failures. Your belief that all these people are upstanding looking out for your best interest is ridiculous. These things I mentioned are government. You don't even have to look outside the US government to see serious failures. Think about it for a moment- if you are in organized crime who do you want to be Chief of police? Or, prosecutor? Judge? And so on. So, can you faithfully depend on government? As the forefathers say- Nobody hands over his weapons. When you look at all the help that legitimate Chief of police, prosecutors and etc. do and how many times they fail - they clearly are not your saviour. 

And why do you falsely accuse millions of Americans of being murders? Why do you slander them? If you were right the population here would be way different, and millions of people from around the world would not be trying to move here. What you and your liberal make believe friends don't understand is Individual Liberty. Individual Liberty means you can't harm somebody. Robbing people of individual liberty by taking away their gun rights is breaking the law. Are not good laws to prevent robbing? Meaning well by taking away peoples rights leads to a bad end for everone.


----------



## globetrotter

JLibourel said:


> I am not necessarily faulting you for your ignorance of this one, but it has been my observation that, by and large, people's hostility to the private ownership of firearms is in inverse ratio to their knowledge of firearms.
> 
> .


JL, not to argue a point that we have been discussing for hundreds of posts, but part of this comes down to the difinition of "knowledge".

lets put this in perspective. lets talk about a chisel. lets say that you have too people, one is a carpenter - every day, he puts on his tool belt, goes to work and makes wooden cabinets. he makes world class wooden cabinets. he takes good care of his chisel, and knows how to use it to create buitiful wooden pieces of functional art.

now, lets say you have another gentleman, who collects chisels. he has 300 chisels - gold plated, 4 feet long, mother of pearl handled, etc. he can play music on them, he can juggle them, he can make sushi with them. and, he makes it very clear that he could make cabinets with them, but that isn't the real reason for having a chisel - chisels are great in and of themselves.

so, the one guy knows how to make cabinets with chisels. the other guy can tell you the history of the chisel, how many chisels were made in china last year, and can play "the saints go marching in" by tapping together a pair of chisels.

who knows more about chisels? and who knows the right amount about chisels?


----------



## globetrotter

WA said:


> Another problem I have with people like you, is, bravery and liberty go together, and your not brave. Brave people aren't afraid people have guns. Since brave people are not afraid there can't be a reason to take away any liberty, such as- gun ownership.
> 
> .


and what, exactly, have you done to prove your bravery?


----------



## yachtie

globetrotter said:


> ...and can play "the saints go marching in" *by tapping together a pair of chisels. *


 Heaven Forfend!

Okay, levity break over, back to the slugfest.


----------



## 16412

"Originally Posted by WA 
Another problem I have with people like you, is, bravery and liberty go together, and your not brave. Brave people aren't afraid people have guns. Since brave people are not afraid there can't be a reason to take away any liberty, such as- gun ownership."



globetrotter said:


> and what, exactly, have you done to prove your bravery?


You quoted my answer. As I said - Brave people aren't afraid people have guns.

Are you afraid non-government people having guns?


----------



## globetrotter

WA said:


> "Originally Posted by WA
> Another problem I have with people like you, is, bravery and liberty go together, and your not brave. Brave people aren't afraid people have guns. Since brave people are not afraid there can't be a reason to take away any liberty, such as- gun ownership."
> 
> You quoted my answer. As I said - Brave people aren't afraid people have guns.
> 
> Are you afraid non-government people having guns?


well, let me answer that on multiple levels - I think that I have made it pretty clear that I am not proposing that the population be disarmed. I am, and have suggested that the population has no real need for the type of arms that they have. I have no fear what so ever of much of the armed civillian population - some of the gentlemen here who put so much of their time in at the range that one almost, but not quite, has to wonder about their sanity.

in general, yes, I am scared about the amount of guns around in the US. I am scared that my son is going to go on a play date to some idiots house that leaves there guns lieing aroung and will get killed, I am scared that some other idiot will let one of his 30 some 1911s get stolen and it will end up in the hands of a junkie who will shoot my wife in the grocery store, and I am scared that some guy who really really believes he needs an assult rifle with high velocity rounds will put a few rounds through the wall of my house by accident when the pizza boy rings his doorbell. so, yes, I am scared.

but let me ask you what I have asked the couple of guys over the decades who have questioned my courage - what have you done to prove your courage? I know what I have done.


----------



## Kav

I would point out the murderer in this sad event shot himself. And like the hijackers of 9/11 we are left to mourn without the satisfaction and closure of condemning the perpetrators. So, as a society we run around finding second tier culprits; the sellers of firearms, english grandmothers having G.I.Joe doll M1 Garand accessories confiscated at LAX, breast milk poured out, thousands of nail clippers sold on EBAY. I'm really curious to watch this round unfold. The killer was what, a citizen of the PRC from Shanghai, yet the maze and contradictory body of gun laws allowed him to purchase a 9MM Glock and a .22? And yet if a 18 y/o returns from Iraq he/she may find some States or Cities have passed laws against that individual buying a firearm. But then hopefully our society is rewarding that individual with a scholarship to oh, say an engineering college in Virginia, assuming there is room after we let citizens of the PRC in. You may be an advocate of 'gunrights' or an advocate of a society without firearms. What everyone should acknowledge is the utter failure of our ever increasing and burdonsome gun legislation seemingly written from an Ivory tower and transcribed next door at the Tower of Babel. A body of laws which has failed utterly to deter a criminal, who by definition does not obey law to begin with. I can't wait to see whats coming.


----------



## ksinc

Desk Jockey said:


> Every militia in every state required the citizen to sign up. That's what made it regulated. The unregulated militia was entered into upon the age of majority. When was the Florida Militia disbanded? Are you talking about after the Civil War?


No, I realize to you 38 might be old, but I was not alive during the Civil War 
It was ~1995 these were enacted. It was right after Waco.

870.06 Unauthorized military organizations.--

No body of persons, other than the regularly organized land and naval militia of this state, the troops of the United States, and the students of regularly chartered educational institutions where military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction, shall associate themselves together as a military organization for drill or parade in public with firearms, in this state, without special license from the Governor for each occasion, and application for such license must be approved by the mayor and aldermen of the cities and towns where such organizations may propose to parade. Each person unlawfully engaging in the formation of such military organization, or participating in such drill or parade, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

History.--s. 15, ch. 1466, 1866; RS 2411; s. 10, ch. 5202, 1903; GS 3246; RGS 5077; CGL 7179; s. 1129, ch. 71-136; s. 1403, ch. 97-102.

790.29 Paramilitary training; teaching or participation prohibited.--

(1) This act shall be known and may be cited as the "State Antiparamilitary Training Act."

(2) As used in this section, the term "civil disorder" means a public disturbance involving acts of violence by an assemblage of three or more persons, which disturbance causes an immediate danger of, or results in, damage or injury to the property or person of any other individual within the United States.

(3)(a) Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, destructive device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder within the United States, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) Whoever assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, destructive device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to unlawfully employ the same for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder within the United States, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to prohibit any act of a law enforcement officer which is performed in connection with the lawful performance of his or her official duties or to prohibit the training or teaching of the use of weapons to be used for hunting, recreation, competition, self-defense or the protection of one's person or property, or other lawful use.

History.--s. 1, ch. 82-5; s. 164, ch. 83-216; s. 1220, ch. 97-102.


----------



## 16412

globetrotter said:


> well, let me answer that on multiple levels - I think that I have made it pretty clear that I am not proposing that the population be disarmed. I am, and have suggested that the population has no real need for the type of arms that they have. I have no fear what so ever of much of the armed civillian population - some of the gentlemen here who put so much of their time in at the range that one almost, but not quite, has to wonder about their sanity.
> 
> in general, yes, I am scared about the amount of guns around in the US. I am scared that my son is going to go on a play date to some idiots house that leaves there guns lieing aroung and will get killed, I am scared that some other idiot will let one of his 30 some 1911s get stolen and it will end up in the hands of a junkie who will shoot my wife in the grocery store, and I am scared that some guy who really really believes he needs an assult rifle with high velocity rounds will put a few rounds through the wall of my house by accident when the pizza boy rings his doorbell. so, yes, I am scared.
> 
> but let me ask you what I have asked the couple of guys over the decades who have questioned my courage - what have you done to prove your courage? I know what I have done.


With out fear how would we know what bravery is? We all fear things now and then. I'd be more afraid of your son getting into serious drugs by thinking he picked friends when he didn't.

Do we stick our head in the sand when fear shows up, or, stand up to it. Standing up to it a lone is not good enough, wisdom helps. Suppose walking along a trial and you meet three people who mean you ill, is it better to run away, grab a club, pull out a knife, or shoot them? I think wisdom says run away. To stand up to them and shoot them is that bravery or foolishness? To run only works for a while. To call the cops (shady or not) what are you going to say, when you don't know who they are, but you heard enough of their intent, and you know every word you tell the cops (shady or not) they will hear. Washington State gun law of waiting five days is illegal and completely unfair to the innocent. The criminals I speak of are not going to let you ever buy a gun. You like child, women, men rapers, serious drug pusher that ruin lives, loan sharks, and any other activitis that are worse than Hilter? Then you like Washingtons state law. Bravery does not make the laws Washington state has. Indeed when dealing with 2-3 or 100 people that will do evil if given the chance the gun is the evener, by leveling the field. For people who have never had it proven to them they have no right to tell other people what they can or can not do.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

ksinc said:


> (3)(a) *Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use*, application, or making *of any* firearm, *destructive device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder within the United States, is guilty of a felony of the third degree*, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
> 
> (b) *Whoever assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any* firearm, *destructive device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to unlawfully employ the same for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder within the United States, is guilty of a felony of the third degree,* punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.


 Read the *bolded sections* of your cites. Has any creative prosecutor yet used these, in your knowledge, to indict a driver education teacher whose students were speeding on a crowded highway? The class is "assembled". The teacher is "training". The automobile is most certainly a "dangerous device". It is certainly "capable of causing injury or death". It is common knowledge that teens often "intentionally" speed. Speeding is "unlawful". And speeding on a crowded highway will absolutely cause "civil disorder".

Unstoppable Al Capone was eventually corralled by the tax statutes, not by the laws against his more publicized crimes.

Fodder for the think tank ...


----------



## ksinc

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Read the *bolded sections* of your cites. Has any creative prosecutor yet used these, in your knowledge, to indict a driver education teacher whose students were speeding on a crowded highway? The class is "assembled". The teacher is "training". The automobile is most certainly a "dangerous device". It is certainly "capable of causing injury or death". It is common knowledge that teens often "intentionally" speed. Speeding is "unlawful". And speeding on a crowded highway will absolutely cause "civil disorder".
> 
> Unstoppable Al Capone was eventually corralled by the tax statutes, not by the laws against his more publicized crimes.
> 
> Fodder for the think tank ...


Indeed vagueness has been one of the many complaints with those statutes. You make a good point.


----------



## Wayfarer

AK:

Please do not give them ideas!


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

Wayfarer said:


> AK:
> 
> Please do not give them ideas!


Awww. I figured that had to be good for at least another 5 pages.


----------



## giff74

I have come late to this party and I am not here to drive debate, just offer two cents.

I am 33, have a family, own a business, carry very expensive pieces of paper in my possession from time to time and live in a state with very liberal gun ownership and CCW laws. However, this was not always the case. When I was in college and into my mid 20's I often thought carrying a gun was a crazy thing to do. Why would I need to arm myself, did the police not do an adequate job of protecting my rights and personal being?At that point in my life, I suppose local law enforcement met all my needs, but my stake wasn't very large either.

As my life has changed over the last 10 years, so has my point of view. There is the personal property stuff; the house, business, the expensive things I carry sometimes, but the real difference is having kids. If the law gives my the option to own and carry fire arms, I will do so to protect my family. I don't always carry, very often I live a gun in the car when I am traveling, but at the house I don't hesitate to leave my shotgun loaded at night. I think one of the debated points above has been how much good do the police do once someone has entered my home? Answer-none for at least five good minutes, longer than that if someone cant call 911 right away. 

So having said all that, if I were out with or without my family and someone threatened myself or my family I would not hesitate to draw my weapon. If I felt very threatened I would fire my weapon. If someone were to break into my home, they would not get the benefit of the doubt. I will fire before they have any opportunity to get near my family. 

This country was founded with the right to bear arms, the only thing that has changed is who we defend ourselves against. Enemies are both foreign and domestic these days.

Giff


----------



## ksinc

Well, of course, every family needs a good scattergun!


----------



## JLibourel

globetrotter said:


> so, the one guy knows how to make cabinets with chisels. the other guy can tell you the history of the chisel, how many chisels were made in china last year, and can play "the saints go marching in" by tapping together a pair of chisels.
> 
> who knows more about chisels? and who knows the right amount about chisels?


Hey, Globie, your comment about the guy who can play "When the Saints Go Marching In" by tapping together a pair of chisels just gave a me brilliant idea:

MUSICAL GUNS!

The idea occurred to me that by using a high-capacity semi-automatic and varying the powder charges and cadence of fire, I could play simple tunes with my pistol.

I was thinking of starting with the "Col. Bogey March":

Pow, pow! Pow, pow! BANG! BANG! BANG! Pow, pow! Pow, pow! BANG! BANG! BANG!

Seriously, I might give it a try. It sounds like a fun experiment. I know it is probably anathema to you since you take a grimly serious view of firearms as instruments of death and killing.

However, we normally oriented American males know that realistically our primary purpose in owning most of our guns is not killing--most of us get through our adult lives without getting into so much as a fist fight, much less a gunfight. Instead, it is for FUN, FUN, FUN!

And you, my friend, have just given me an idea for a new way to have more fun with my guns!


----------



## Wayfarer

Jan:

How about a rendition of Dagshai Hills in such a fashion? Here is a partial account:



> Pushing into the Tirah the British soon came to a point at Dargai where the enemy was entrenched on on the heights commanding an important mountain pass.* Now armed with superior Long Magazine Lee-Enfield rifles *(the bolt-action "Long Tom" later used in the Boer War), several British Regiments had already been repelled in trying to carry the Heights, when it was the turn of the Gordon Highlanders to try. After their Colonel announced "you will take the heights", the Gordon Highlanders heroically accomplished the deed in 30 minutes.
> 
> The event was indelibly impressed on the popular conscience of the time by the deeds of one Piper Findlater. Playing "The Haughs of Cromdale", the Regimental "onset", at the front of the charge Piper Findlater was twice shot, and his pipes were partially shot away also. But he continued playing until losing consciousness.


----------



## Laxplayer

WA said:


> With out fear how would we know what bravery is? We all fear things now and then. I'd be more afraid of your son getting into serious drugs by thinking he picked friends when he didn't.
> 
> Do we stick our head in the sand when fear shows up, or, stand up to it. Standing up to it a lone is not good enough, wisdom helps. Suppose walking along a trial and you meet three people who mean you ill, is it better to run away, grab a club, pull out a knife, or shoot them? I think wisdom says run away. To stand up to them and shoot them is that bravery or foolishness? To run only works for a while. To call the cops (shady or not) what are you going to say, when you don't know who they are, but you heard enough of their intent, and you know every word you tell the cops (shady or not) they will hear. *Washington State gun law of waiting five days is illegal and completely unfair to the innocent.* The criminals I speak of are not going to let you ever buy a gun. You like child, women, men rapers, serious drug pusher that ruin lives, loan sharks, and any other activitis that are worse than Hilter? Then you like Washingtons state law. Bravery does not make the laws Washington state has. Indeed when dealing with 2-3 or 100 people that will do evil if given the chance the gun is the evener, by leveling the field. For people who have never had it proven to them they have no right to tell other people what they can or can not do.


Are you serious? You can't wait five days to buy a gun? What about background checks? I guess even felons should be able to keep and bear arms huh? 
I own guns. I hunt and skeet/trap shoot. I don't think I need to carry my guns around, and I sure don't think I need an assault rifle. It's absolutely crazy to think someone should be able to walk into a store and buy a gun with no waiting period. 
I've been mugged before. The guy had a knife. He surprised me, and to be honest I probably would have been killed if I had reached for a gun, at least had my throat cut. He told me not to move, took my wallet and left me alone. I guess I could have shot him in the back if I had a gun, but what if I missed and hit someone else? And, how would I explain to a jury that I shot a guy in the back? St. Louis can be a pretty violent city, but I guess I'm not too worried about it. There's a greater chance I will die in an auto accident.


----------



## globetrotter

WA said:


> With out fear how would we know what bravery is? We all fear things now and then. I'd be more afraid of your son getting into serious drugs by thinking he picked friends when he didn't.
> 
> Do we stick our head in the sand when fear shows up, or, stand up to it. Standing up to it a lone is not good enough, wisdom helps. Suppose walking along a trial and you meet three people who mean you ill, is it better to run away, grab a club, pull out a knife, or shoot them? I think wisdom says run away. To stand up to them and shoot them is that bravery or foolishness? To run only works for a while. To call the cops (shady or not) what are you going to say, when you don't know who they are, but you heard enough of their intent, and you know every word you tell the cops (shady or not) they will hear. Washington State gun law of waiting five days is illegal and completely unfair to the innocent. The criminals I speak of are not going to let you ever buy a gun. You like child, women, men rapers, serious drug pusher that ruin lives, loan sharks, and any other activitis that are worse than Hilter? Then you like Washingtons state law. Bravery does not make the laws Washington state has. Indeed when dealing with 2-3 or 100 people that will do evil if given the chance the gun is the evener, by leveling the field. For people who have never had it proven to them they have no right to tell other people what they can or can not do.


Wa,

lets focus. you called DJ a coward, and you questioned my courage. I have asked you three times - what makes you think that you are brave? have you ever tested your bravery?


----------



## JLibourel

Wayfarer said:


> Jan:
> 
> How about a rendition of Dagshai Hills in such a fashion? Here is a partial account:


Yeah, that charge of the "Gay Gordons" is a famous incident in British military annals.


----------



## globetrotter

JLibourel said:


> And you, my friend, have just given me an idea for a new way to have more fun with my guns!


nothing gives me greater happiness!!


----------



## ksinc

I'm in favor of background checks and reasonable waiting periods. If you have a CCW permit you are exempt from the waiting period. However, the CCW process is very extensive. I have no sympathy for someone who can't plan their life any better than to conform to the requirements of gun ownership. They are far less burdensome than the responsibilities. 

I'm rather shocked and I think if one decent thing came out of VT it would be that you must be a citizen and not a permanent resident to buy a handgun. I have NO problem with something like that being passed by a State.


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> JL, not to argue a point that we have been discussing for hundreds of posts, but part of this comes down to the difinition of "knowledge".
> 
> lets put this in perspective. lets talk about a chisel. lets say that you have too people, one is a carpenter - every day, he puts on his tool belt, goes to work and makes wooden cabinets. he makes world class wooden cabinets. he takes good care of his chisel, and knows how to use it to create buitiful wooden pieces of functional art.
> 
> now, lets say you have another gentleman, who collects chisels. he has 300 chisels - gold plated, 4 feet long, mother of pearl handled, etc. he can play music on them, he can juggle them, he can make sushi with them. and, he makes it very clear that he could make cabinets with them, but that isn't the real reason for having a chisel - chisels are great in and of themselves.
> 
> so, the one guy knows how to make cabinets with chisels. the other guy can tell you the history of the chisel, how many chisels were made in china last year, and can play "the saints go marching in" by tapping together a pair of chisels.
> 
> who knows more about chisels? and who knows the right amount about chisels?


Oh, we're back to claiming collectors are basically incompetent again are we? Fantastic integrity in that position! 

In the first case, there is no carpenter, it's more like a bunch of soccer moms crying that chisels are inherently evil.

Nice try, terribly faulty analogy and I was pretty sure you agreed to stop with the implications of incompetence? Perhaps I was mistaken.


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> Wa,
> 
> lets focus. you called DJ a coward, and you questioned my courage. I have asked you three times - what makes you think that you are brave? have you ever tested your bravery?


FWIW, I find no use of the word "coward". Perhaps search is broken? Or perhaps the accusation is overstated?


----------



## Desk Jockey

WA said:


> Desk Jockey I find your education is rather incomplete. For example, The Bill Of Rights- are these the only rights? Do you know the history of making of the Bill Of Rights? Do you know that there are other rights? These other rights are equal to the ones listed in the Bill Of rights. In the other rights includes gun ownership.


No, the Bill of Rights (and the other enabling amendments) simply state what the Government is *not[b/] allowed to do. There's no right to dance naked down Pennsylvania Ave covered in frosting, there are a number of public decency laws that I should hope prevent this. Likewise, there's no enumerated right in either the Constitution or the US Code to, as an individual, own a firearm. There are, however, a number of laws regulating gun ownership. As with the "right to privacy," the right to own firearms only exists within the confines of the relevant statues.




Technically I don't even see anywhere that says the government can even know what guns you own, except for the ones they demand you own.

Click to expand...

The National Firearms Act of 1934 and the later Gun Control Act of 1968 requires the ATF to keep registries of all legal arms purchases.




Why? Because we are not owned by the government, nor collective nonsence you mentioned (which is stealing).

Click to expand...

Of course you're not owned by the Government, we the citizens are the sovereign and as such are the collective governmental authority. Not for nothing, but no one can "steal" a right that never existed in the first place.




Another problem I have with people like you, is, bravery and liberty go together, and your not brave. Brave people aren't afraid people have guns. Since brave people are not afraid there can't be a reason to take away any liberty, such as- gun ownership.

Click to expand...

Tough talk, for a forum on the internet. I'm afraid in the sense that senseless deaths can be prevented by stronger regulatory authority. One should be afraid of death - nature has been pounding that concept into our heads since the first cells.




You are rather wet behind the ears- Your faith in Law enforcement, prosecutors, judges and law makers is terrible. There are books and books and books on these failures. Your belief that all these people are upstanding looking out for your best interest is ridiculous. These things I mentioned are government. You don't even have to look outside the US government to see serious failures. Think about it for a moment- if you are in organized crime who do you want to be Chief of police? Or, prosecutor? Judge? And so on. So, can you faithfully depend on government? As the forefathers say- Nobody hands over his weapons. When you look at all the help that legitimate Chief of police, prosecutors and etc. do and how many times they fail - they clearly are not your saviour.

Click to expand...

My faith is terrible? We've devolved that quickly into a banana republic?

So instead of working legally to bring the abuses to hilt, you'd rather just threaten, or quite possibly shoot, members of the legal system?




And why do you falsely accuse millions of Americans of being murders? Why do you slander them? If you were right the population here would be way different, and millions of people from around the world would not be trying to move here. What you and your liberal make believe friends don't understand is Individual Liberty. Individual Liberty means you can't harm somebody. Robbing people of individual liberty by taking away their gun rights is breaking the law. Are not good laws to prevent robbing? Meaning well by taking away peoples rights leads to a bad end for everone.

Click to expand...

Where did I call the lot of the American people murderers? When did I make that libelous accusations?



ksinc said:



FWIW, I find no use of the word "coward". Perhaps search is broken? Or perhaps the accusation is overstated?

Click to expand...

He said that I'm not brave, one of the many the antonyms of that word is "coward."

Also, I will be unable to post tomorrow (an event that no doubt will have certain members jumping for joy at the lack of an interloper) as I will be in Blacksburg with a few friends of mine.*


----------



## ksinc

Desk Jockey said:


> He said that I'm not brave, one of the many the antonyms of that word is "coward."


Weak.


----------



## 16412

globetrotter said:


> Wa,
> 
> lets focus. you called DJ a coward, and you questioned my courage. I have asked you three times - what makes you think that you are brave? have you ever tested your bravery?


Test for bravery? How does one test for bravery? People will tell you when you are brave. I took a guy up this cliff that is about 150 feet, no rope, I thought he was brave, but I never considered myself brave going up or down that cliff as I had four or five times before, no rope, by myself (the cliff has changed- I wouldn't go up there now). One of my brothers used to push me off cliffs and then yank me back before gravity took effect- it gave me a better veiw for looking down with thin air below my feet, one time for probably 40 feet, I don't know how many times he did it, but it didn't bother me, except once or twice. I would say we are all brave from time to time and all cowards from time to time, wouldn't you?

What bothers me is people who want guns removed from every one, instead of good gun handling behavior. Wanting guns removed from every one, is a lack of bravery and courage. Making laws unreasonal is a lack of bravery and courage. Sounds like to me your neigbors are not living up to individual liberity when it concerns other people with their misshandling of their high powered guns. I believe in laws concerning misshandling guns, but laws that misshandle the innocents right to guns is misshandling.


----------



## 16412

Desk Jockey said:


> No, the Bill of Rights (and the other enabling amendments) simply state what the Government is *not[b/] allowed to do. There's no right to dance naked down Pennsylvania Ave covered in frosting, there are a number of public decency laws that I should hope prevent this. Likewise, there's no enumerated right in either the Constitution or the US Code to, as an individual, own a firearm. There are, however, a number of laws regulating gun ownership. As with the "right to privacy," the right to own firearms only exists within the confines of the relevant statues.*


*

As others have said you haven't done your own reading or listen to what others have to say about history, especially those that made it. What you are doing is saying what some teachers have told and nothing more.




The National Firearms Act of 1934 and the later Gun Control Act of 1968 requires the ATF to keep registries of all legal arms purchases.

Of course you're not owned by the Government, we the citizens are the sovereign and as such are the collective governmental authority. Not for nothing, but no one can "steal" a right that never existed in the first place.

Click to expand...

It is amazing how the Supreme Court overturns laws now and then, isn't it?

Again, your history teachers failed you.




Tough talk, for a forum on the internet. I'm afraid in the sense that senseless deaths can be prevented by stronger regulatory authority. One should be afraid of death - nature has been pounding that concept into our heads since the first cells.

Click to expand...

As Kav said only people who want to obey the laws will obey the laws and criminals are criminal because they don't obey laws. So why hurt decent people with laws that don't work?




My faith is terrible?

Click to expand...

You make it very clear where your faith is at.




So instead of working legally to bring the abuses to hilt, you'd rather just threaten, or quite possibly shoot, members of the legal system?

Click to expand...

If it were only that simple. And, your saying we should die if a criminal is hiding in uniform or behind a badge? Washington State has or has had laws conerning shooting cops, and they're not all of what you think those laws are. There is no place in any US laws that says you cannot defend yourself against rouge cops.




Where did I call the lot of the American people murderers? When did I make that libelous accusations?

Click to expand...

Your opening into this thread sounded like that to me.*


----------



## Laxplayer

WA said:


> As others have said you haven't done your own reading or listen to what others have to say about history, especially those that made it. What you are doing is saying what some teachers have told and nothing more.
> 
> It is amazing how the Supreme Court overturns laws now and then, isn't it?
> 
> Again, your history teachers failed you.
> 
> As Kav said only people who want to obey the laws will obey the laws and criminals are criminal because they don't obey laws. So why hurt decent people with laws that don't work?
> 
> You make it very clear where your faith is at.
> 
> If it were only that simple. And, your saying we should die if a criminal is hiding in uniform or behind a badge? Washington State has or has had laws conerning shooting cops, and they're not all of what you think those laws are. There is no place in any US laws that says you cannot defend yourself against *rouge cops*.
> 
> Your opening into this thread sounded like that to me.


Red cops? 
I think you've watched to many movies. _The Departed_ maybe? Maybe you should move into a compound in the woods to protect yourself from all the violent elements in WA.


----------



## Martinis at 8

This thread has gotten hilarious. I can't believe the number of replies. I sense the thread about cheating will get just as comical.

Get a grip people! On life, and your pistol :icon_smile_big: 

M8


----------



## Laxplayer

ksinc said:


> I'm in favor of background checks and reasonable waiting periods. If you have a CCW permit you are exempt from the waiting period. However, the CCW process is very extensive. I have no sympathy for someone who can't plan their life any better than to conform to the requirements of gun ownership. They are far less burdensome than the responsibilities.
> 
> I'm rather shocked and I think if one decent thing came out of VT it would be that you must be a citizen and not a permanent resident to buy a handgun. I have NO problem with something like that being passed by a State.


In MO we have to pass a firearms safety course, and then register our guns at the county courthouse. We can also receive a concealed carry permit if we so desire. The firearms safety class isn't really all that useful if you have ever handled a gun before, but it's only one Saturday and you only have to take it once. In IL they have a firearms owner ID card (FOID). I believe the FOID card is good for 5 years. I like the idea of an ID card, but would maybe add the serial numbers of the guns owned to the back of the card.

I'm not sure if MO has a law similar to VT's or not. I will have to check on that. I'm betting that there is one. Valley Park, MO (just outside St. Louis) recently passed a city ordinance that all residents and employees of Valley Park must be legal residents and must speak English while at work.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

Martinis at 8 said:


> This thread has gotten hilarious. I can't believe the number of replies. I sense the thread about cheating will get just as comical.
> 
> Get a grip people! On life, and your pistol :icon_smile_big:
> 
> M8


 Copycat. I said that already. Nobody listened. Nobody cared. Perhaps you and I can have our own sub-thread conversation within this thread?


----------



## globetrotter

ksinc said:


> Oh, we're back to claiming collectors are basically incompetent again are we? Fantastic integrity in that position!
> 
> In the first case, there is no carpenter, it's more like a bunch of soccer moms crying that chisels are inherently evil.
> 
> Nice try, terribly faulty analogy and I was pretty sure you agreed to stop with the implications of incompetence? Perhaps I was mistaken.


K,

I didn't say incompetent, but I think this is an extremly clear anology.

a group of people has taken a tool, that was invented, designed and manufactured for one task, and has created a cult around it to the extent that they have found all sorts of other things that can be done with the tool. I was reacting to JL's comment on the "racing pistol". sure, you can play "when the saints come marching in" with woodworking tools, and you could probrably roll sushi with a shotgun, if you really wanted to. but guns are made as tools for killing. any attempt to try to argue differently is intellectually dishonest.

another issue - we have two very very different skill sets that we are realting to firearm use. I am not saying one is right, and one is wrong. but if we were to chart these on a venn chart, there would be very little overlap between what I believe to be the skills needed to know how to operate a firearm, and those that you believe are the skills needed.

I would happily concede - you, and many of the posters here, probrably have fired more types of firearms than I have or ever will (I have probrably fired less than 20 makes of firearms). I would concende that you, and many of the posters here, are probrably better at shooting at paper than I am , and possible better than I was in my prime. you read more about firearms (the only gun magazine I have read in 20 years was one that somebody lent me on a plane once), you talk more about them, etc. I couldn't name 5 gunfighters that I didnt know personally - you seem to know the story of everone with a firearm and a PR person from the past 100 years. that is cool.

on the flip side - I think that the level of security with firearms that I consider manditory is not the level that you would consider reasonable. I believe that the skills of moving while firing, firing at angles, understanding where your round will end up after hitting or passing your target, firing in a room with other people, firing with limited senses, firing under physical stress are all much more important in terms of "knowing" how to operate a firearm. and these happen to be the skills that one gets when one works with weapons on a proffetional level.

so, I believe the anology is correct - one groups knows a lot more about chisels, one group knows a lot more about making cabinets. what seems like a more reasonable skill set?


----------



## ksinc

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Copycat. I said that already. Nobody listened. Nobody cared. Perhaps you and I can have our own sub-thread conversation within this thread?


AK,

Please do not be offended!

Your post was a rational observation based largely on a plain reading of the facts. We rather had our hands full and must prioritize responses on the basis of need!

To wit - I think Jefferson once said, "a man in a black suit is but without a gun still naked." 

Cheers!


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

ksinc said:


> AK,
> 
> To wit - I think Jefferson once said, "a man in a black suit is but without a gun still naked."
> 
> Cheers!


No worries. Jefferson was right. I have multiples of both. Given the right company, though, I would still rather be naked.


----------



## mpcsb

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> ... Given the right company, though, I would still rather be naked.


As an old friend used to tease...."I got a gun...know where? :devil: "


----------



## yachtie

Laxplayer said:


> In MO we have to pass a firearms safety course, and then register our guns at the county courthouse. We can also receive a concealed carry permit if we so desire. The firearms safety class isn't really all that useful if you have ever handled a gun before, but it's only one Saturday and you only have to take it once. In IL they have a firearms owner ID card (FOID). I believe the FOID card is good for 5 years. I like the idea of an ID card, but would maybe add the serial numbers of the guns owned to the back of the card.
> .


I'd be rather dubious of the purposes to which information gathered in registering the firearm, rather than the owner, would be put. What they don't know I have, they can't subsequently confiscate.


----------



## Wayfarer

ksinc said:


> I'm rather shocked and I think if one decent thing came out of VT it would be that you must be a citizen and not a permanent resident to buy a handgun. I have NO problem with something like that being passed by a State.


Not only do I have a problem with that, being a resident alien, but the Constitution does too. Do not fall prey to those you are arguing against, and start to selectivly read and enforce the Constitution. This has come up in Michigan, they had a state law allowing only citizens. It was struck down as un-Constitutional.

I am afraid this case is going to cause an outbreak of gun banning among liberals and xenophobia in the right.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

yachtie said:


> I'd be rather dubious of the purposes to which information gathered in registering the firearm, rather than the owner, would be put. What they don't know I have, they can't subsequently confiscate.


 How can one be so cynical about those in charge of our revered republic? My God, that's almost as bad as finding fault with an Ask Andy Moderator.

Pardon me. Am I interrupting your debate? :devil:


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> K,
> I didn't say incompetent, but I think this is an extremly clear anology.


Excuse me, but you said incompetent as much as the WA "called DJ a coward." You implied that the second group could not also make cabinets or use chisels in their intended purpose. FTR I'm going to hold you to the same level of integrity you demand from others. FWIW, you also lost that competence debate 3 days ago, remember?



> a group of people has taken a tool, that was invented, designed and manufactured for one task, and has created a cult around it to the extent that they have found all sorts of other things that can be done with the tool. I was reacting to JL's comment on the "racing pistol". sure, you can play "when the saints come marching in" with woodworking tools, and you could probrably roll sushi with a shotgun, if you really wanted to. but guns are made as tools for killing. any attempt to try to argue differently is intellectually dishonest.


This is a totally unsupported analogy. What specific group/person that has taken said tools and done those things at the exception of the first are you referring? And on what basis are you applying that to others? Or is this your invisible man in tactical black pj's that Hombre made up?

As I stated previously, the men in the article with the fancy sixguns were expert handgun marksmen and Bill Jordan in particular was also a rifleman and an expert in unarmed combat. You may not like the facts, but those are the facts. Gun usefulness and aestethic are not mutually exclusive as much as you would like to convince us they are.



> another issue - we have two very very different skill sets that we are realting to firearm use. I am not saying one is right, and one is wrong. but if we were to chart these on a venn chart, there would be very little overlap between what I believe to be the skills needed to know how to operate a firearm, and those that you believe are the skills needed.


We do? Frankly, you have no idea what I think the skills are required to operate a firearm are or what my skills with one or without one are beyond my posts here. Nor did you ask. Frankly, what a ridiculously arrogant thing to play the professional and then assume so much based on so little. It betrays your self-purported seriousness and military precision on the subject.



> I would happily concede - you, and many of the posters here, probrably have fired more types of firearms than I have or ever will (I have probrably fired less than 20 makes of firearms). I would concende that you, and many of the posters here, are probrably better at shooting at paper than I am , and possible better than I was in my prime. you read more about firearms (the only gun magazine I have read in 20 years was one that somebody lent me on a plane once), you talk more about them, etc. I couldn't name 5 gunfighters that I didnt know personally - you seem to know the story of everone with a firearm and a PR person from the past 100 years. that is cool.
> 
> *on the flip side - I think that the level of security with firearms that I consider manditory is not the level that you would consider reasonable.* I believe that the skills of moving while firing, firing at angles, understanding where your round will end up after hitting or passing your target, firing in a room with other people, firing with limited senses, firing under physical stress are all much more important in terms of "knowing" how to operate a firearm. and these happen to be the skills that one gets when one works with weapons on a proffetional level.
> 
> so, I believe the anology is correct - one groups knows a lot more about chisels, one group knows a lot more about making cabinets. what seems like a more reasonable skill set?


Globetrotter, seriously, you are totally full of it here. I don't know how to say it any more politely.

No, I have not seen an armed combat situation and I have not used a gun to kill someone. The best I could claim as a competency test is: I hunt wild hogs with a 4" .357 revolver. FYI that's a 158gr LSWC moving at only about 1350fps, barely enough gun without proper placement on a wild animal that will definitely cut you at close range. Many hunters would claim this is no where near enough gun and on the verge of irresponsible. I usually try take shots of about 25 yards. Often the stupid hog doesn't cooperate and I end charged at 25 feet! Of course, you probably feel there's not a lot of stress or moving while shooting at angles and stuff involved in that! You're probably right.

I honestly don't think I have read a gun magazine since I quit working for MARTA security in 1989 for $6.50/hr. I'm a proud native Florida Cracker that worked the East Lake train station alone from 1am to 6am armed solely with a maglite. How long do you really think I went between episodes of someone trying to stuff that down my throat?

I have been a strong and vocal advocate for safety and competence in this thread, in point of fact, I was the one that used those words INTERCHANGEABLY.

Excuse me for not defending my personal ability with arms more strongly or giving my family's martial history, as I think it has as little to do with this debate. There's always someone bigger, badder, and meaner. Perhaps that is you. However, I really don't see what arguing over who has studied MA or shot guns more or more competently has to do with the simple facts and subject matter of this thread. I think I stated that before. If you need my personal life history, I'll be glad to provide it. Perhaps we could just arm wrestle? 

Frankly, I'm not sure what you are out to prove, but you should change both strategy & tactics IMHO. YMMV.

Cheers!


----------



## yachtie

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> How can one be so cynical about those in charge of our revered republic? My God, that's almost as bad as finding fault with an Ask Andy Moderator.


Gee, Alex, that's as American as Mom and Apple Pie.



> Pardon me. Am I interrupting your debate? :devil:


Not at all. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## globetrotter

ksinc said:


> Excuse me, but you said incompetent as much as the WA "called DJ a coward." You implied that the second group could not also make cabinets or use chisels in their intended purpose. You lost that debate 3 days ago, remember?


no, I said that we are dealing with totally different competency sets. and, I said that one group chose not to use chisels to their intended purpose.



> This is a totally unsupported analogy. What specific group/person that has taken said tools and done those things at the exception of the first are you referring?


well, I would say that the group that keeps insisting that firearms are not tools for killing. seems to me clear cut.



> As I stated previously, the men in the article with the fancy sixguns were expert handgun marksmen and Bill Jordan in particular was also a rifleman and an expert in unarmed combat. You may not like the facts, but those are the facts. Gun usefulness and aestethic are not mutually exclusive as much as you would like to convince us they are.


K, this comes down to pretty much the core of this argument. I am saying that "expert handgun marksman" is sort of like saying "expert chisel musician" - I am firmly convinced that I could find 5,000 men who could outfight any of these "expert handgun marksmen" with a handgun. using a handgun is not about hitting a piece of paper (or a flying pie plate), it is about a whole basket of skills that you and I won't find agreement on. ditto "expert in unarmed combat". I have a friend (or actually, a friend of my wife's mother, to be accurate) who is an "expert on unarmed combat". he has written books, he makes his living teachign people "unarmed combat". he could kick my ass, I am sure. he put a lot of effort into not going to vietnam, and he has never really gotten into a violent confrontation with anybody. I know some other people, who are basically fat old middle class salarymen, who have broken hundreds of arms and legs with night sticks. who is the "expert on unarmed combat"?


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> no, I said that we are dealing with totally different competency sets. and, I said that one group chose not to use chisels to their intended purpose.
> 
> well, I would say that the group that keeps insisting that firearms are not tools for killing. seems to me clear cut.


Again with the groups? What group would that be exactly - the Air Force? You persist with this un-supported and mutually exclusive viewpoint. Let me say this, if you know someone who collects fancy guns and would not use a gun for it's intended purpose if required, they might be an idiot. I don't know anyone like that and no one has posted anything like that. It is a fiction that it is representative.

Who is this un-named person? Please tell us so that we may strip him of his arms!

When you assume without facts it's somewhat forgivable and understandable. When you persist with assumptions and accusations in spite of being corrected, I'm not really sure what to think about your goal.

You talk about invisible and I think non-existent groups. I named specific men that did a hell of a lot more than shoot paper targets.

Perhaps you missed the post about how the 15 hours (LOL) of basic MA training was designed by Applegate who consulted with men like Jordan? Whatever you and your peers learned in basic you learned indirectly from them and if we want to broadly extrapolate MOST/the overwhelmig MAJORITY of servicemen and cops have nothing except that 15 hours. How many really dangerous guys do you know? 10? 100? 1000? out of how many 100,000s? And; you want to broadly impune "groups"? That makes no sense.

How many incompetent gun nuts do you know vs. say cops that can REALLY use a kubotan or yawara stick in a real fight? Are we also going to call all or most cops posers and amatuers because a few of them are fat, useless pu$$ie$? I think not.

Seriously, IMHO you really should have some respect for a fellow soldier, combat veteran of two wars, and Lt. Col. in the Marines (back when Marines where real Rifleman no less). This was in addition to his 30 year LEO career. I hope you do have respect. No offense, but I'd put my $1 at 20:1 on Bill Jordan vs. any non-specific member of any "group". Perhaps you would kick his ass. I dunno. I'm sure you're still a very dangerous guy and I'm not trying to antagonize you. Your broad extrapolations are just clearly wrong and some of the things you are implying were said, were not really said - at least by me.

I still don't understand your motivation, why you jumped in with Hombre in a logical quicksand or how that serves your SD argument well.


----------



## globetrotter

ksinc said:


> Again with the groups? What group would that be exactly - the Air Force?
> 
> I don't know a single person like whom you are referring and from the language and lack of conviction in your words, I'd guess neither do you.


well, if you look back through this thread, at least 3 people have come out from positions pretty similar to mine, who, strangely enough, happen to be in the making holes in people business. I know dozens, if not hundreds, of people in the, for want of a better term, making holes in people business, and not a single one of them colects firearms. I know, personally, less than 5 people who collect firearms, and none of them finished basic infantry training. while that is very far from a good sample, that is the sample that I have. I have a great deal of respect for many of the posters who have posted here, including those who hold a very different position than I do, but I would lump most of them in the second "group".



> You talk about invisible and I think non-existent groups. I named specific men that did a hell of a lot more than shoot paper targets.
> 
> Perhaps you missed the post about how the 15 hours (LOL) of basic MA training was designed by Applegate who consulted with men like Jordan? Whatever you and your peers learned you learned indirectly from them. Seriously, you should have some respect for a fellow soldier, combat veteran of two wars, and Lt. Col. in the Marines (back when Marines where real Rifleman no less). This was in addition to his 30 year LEO career. No offense, but I'd put my $1 at 20:1 on Bill Jordan.


again, and I think that this is just something that we will not bridge. it is not that I don't have respect for these individuals. it is that I have less respect for them than you seem to have. I am very aware of the dept of knoweldge that is owed, for instance, to applegate. and, I will admit readily, I have no personal knowledge of the exact circomstances of any of these individuals service. my personal experience, however, has been that "celebraty" fighters are not of the same mettle as the annonomous ones.



> I'm sure you're still a very dangerous guy and I'm not trying to antagonize you. Your broad extrapolations are just clearly wrong.


no more dangerous than the next old fat soccer dad - and I don't have a gun, I just have a nightstick.


----------



## Wayfarer

GT and ksinc:

Clarify for me please. Has your conversation broken down to the type(s) of people that collect guns? The last several posts just seem to be about that with GT's position being that "real" fighters do not collect guns. Shed some light please.


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> well, if you look back through this thread, at least 3 people have come out from positions pretty similar to mine, who, strangely enough, happen to be in the making holes in people business.


Yes, and if I may say so, honestly it bothers me more than a little that men that know how to kill and/or have killed are willing to make such bad assumptions and run so far with them. Thank God I have a gun and can use it because some of it sounds a little bit dangerous and scares the hell out of me. It's people like that in positions of real or imagined authority that I worry about not some drugged-up gangbanger. I once got bulldogged pretty badly by a State Trooper in the middle of no where in Martin County. I see enough people that take this whole I was in the police/military thing way too far. If I used your statistical application, I would think 99% of ex-military are all snipers, CQB experts, and hand-to-hand combat instructors. Surely, you see that too?

As I said, I know this guy and I know he's for real. I honestly think if you asked him something as direct as if he "ever put holes in people for a living" he'd burst into tears. I know he's begged for God's forgiveness and he never did anything out of the uniform of our Country. I've never heard him say anything about his DD214 and I've spent extensive time with him for well over 20 years. Just about everything I know about him, I heard from someone else. He is the sweetest, nicest, most polite, kindest person I've ever met. I'm absolutely terrified of accidently scaring the crap out of him - he's like a human grizzly bear and he's in his 60s. I don't know anyone in military or law enforcement that doesn't promote civilians being armed and competent. I never met anyone like that - particularly so, him. I never met anyone that wanted to be responsible for others safety and didn't readily admit they couldn't 100% protect themself, much less someone else.


----------



## globetrotter

Wayfarer said:


> GT and ksinc:
> 
> Clarify for me please. Has your conversation broken down to the type(s) of people that collect guns? The last several posts just seem to be about that with GT's position being that "real" fighters do not collect guns. Shed some light please.


hey, after 711 posts, it is hard to keep the thread flowing, we need to reach deep down

seriously, and these were my points from post 12 or whatever -

1. guns are weapons, no matter how hard you try to put a spin on it, that it the situation.

2. to consider guns a fashion or style accessory is in bad taste

3. if you don't need a gun, using/owning one is like a grown accountant from new jesey wearing cowboy boots and hat

4. as having exess guns in the world is a bad thing, having any more guns than you really need is not just a fashion issue, but a generally bad thing

an argument was raised about point number 1. and I suggested that some people have developed a whole cult around guns and have changed the very nature of guns, to feel better about collecting them.

an argument was raised naming some famous "gunfighters" who considered their firearms as fashion accessories, and I disputed the issue of what make a person an "expert"

but the bottom line is this - there seem to be two types of people posting on this thread now, those that have or do use firearms in the capacity that they were designed for, and those that collect them for general entertainment and fashion purposes, and they have very different positions on the subject.


----------



## globetrotter

ksinc said:


> If I used your statistical application, I would think 99% of ex-military are all snipers, CQB experts, and hand-to-hand combat instructors.


that wasn't my intention - but to be clear, what I am refering to are combat infantrymen (and maybe only combat light infantrymen - joking)



> As I said, I know this guy and I know he's for real. I honestly think if you asked him something as direct as if he "ever put holes in people for a living" he'd burst into tears. I've never heard him say anything about his DD214 and I've spent extensive time with him in a professional (for him) environment for well over 20 years. He is the sweetest, nicest, most polite, kindess person I've ever met. I'm absolutely terrified of accidently scaring the crap out of him.


that actually sounds more like the type of person that I know.

look, I honestly don't mean any disrespect here, to anybody. I am working from my own personal basket of experiences. of the couple hundred guys I know well, 3 or 4 went on to be "experts" and, very frankly, none of those were very good at the time they were actauly "working". one guy I know is a very very highly regarded expert right now and rode the 911 issue to sucess, and he was basicaly a wanker during the period that he was supposed to be gaining the experince he makes his living from. but that is my own set of experiences.


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> but the bottom line is this - there seem to be two types of people posting on this thread now, those that have or do use firearms in the capacity that they were designed for, and those that collect them for general entertainment and fashion purposes, and they have very different positions on the subject.


Please Sir to put names in those two groups and test your mutual exclusivity argument.


----------



## globetrotter

K,

there are 700 post behind us, and I really should be doing some work right now. you know as well as I do - since this thread was reopened there were hombre, Desk jockey and myself, and then, with all the great deal of respect I have for JL and Kav, they were pretty strong in the "well, guns are mostly used for things like helping bears and throwing line, and maybe some people might use them for weapons, as well", camp.


----------



## JLibourel

globetrotter said:


> K,
> 
> there are 700 post behind us, and I really should be doing some work right now. you know as well as I do - since this thread was reopened there were hombre, Desk jockey and myself, and then, with all the great deal of respect I have for JL and Kav, they were pretty strong in the "well, guns are mostly used for things like helping bears and throwing line, and maybe some people might use them for weapons, as well", camp.


Given the fact by most conservative estimates, there are about a quarter-billion guns in the USA. Many people knowledge about the firearms industry would place this number as closer to a half-billion. One longtime veteran of the firearms industry gave me an estimate of 750 million, and that was 10 years ago! For simplicity's sake, let's say there are 300 million, a fairly low estimate. If even 5% of them were used annually for violent purposes, that would be six million shootings a year, which I think might make Iraq look live a haven of peace! So, it's quite obvious that the vast majority of guns are not being kept or used for violent purposes. And, as I have previously pointed out, a huge percentage of firearms, although potentially lethal, are ill-suited for most criminal or violent purposes.

On another note, Globe, you have been challenging various people to state their military credentials. You have been regaling us for years with your "weary warrior" routine, having waded through rivers of blood in your younger days, your killer elite buddies and all that. I know that you have implied you have served in ZAHAL, and some of us wonder just how much action you could have seen with ZAHAL. Have you been in any non-Israeli military units? Could you tell us more specifically your military history? For as ferocious and sanguinary a soldier as you imply you were, you must surely have received promotions and decorations. Could you tell us about these? I am sure we would find it all quite fascinating.

As for me, I did wear the uniform of the U.S. Army when called upon by duty intermittently for two years. Did I do anything appreciable to stem the Red Tide of Communism? I most seriously doubt it! Am I particularly proud of my nugatory military training? Nope!


----------



## Martinis at 8

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Copycat. I said that already. Nobody listened. Nobody cared. Perhaps you and I can have our own sub-thread conversation within this thread?


Gawd! Alex. You didn't expect me to read all these replies did ya?


----------



## globetrotter

JLibourel said:


> If even 5% of them were used annually for violent purposes, that would be six million shootings a year, which I think might make Iraq look live a haven of peace! So, it's quite obvious that the vast majority of guns are not being kept or used for violent purposes. And, as I have previously pointed out, a huge percentage of firearms, although potentially lethal, are ill-suited for most criminal or violent purposes.


what they are acutally used for has nothing to do with what they were designed, developed and manufactured for, as I had hoped to demonstrate with my chisel analogy.



> On another note, Globe, you have been challenging various people to state their military credentials. You have been regaling us for years with your "weary warrior" routine, having waded through rivers of blood in your younger days, your killer elite buddies and all that. I know that you have implied you have served in ZAHAL, and some of us wonder just how much action you could have seen with ZAHAL. Have you been in any non-Israeli military units? Could you tell us more specifically your military history? For as ferocious and sanguinary a soldier as you imply you were, you must surely have received promotions and decorations. Could you tell us about these? I am sure we would find it all quite fascinating.


actually, I went years without ever mentioning my military history, and the vast majoirty of people who know me know nothing about it. there are two reasons that I ever brought it up - the first time I got involved in a thread of this nature, about 2 years ago, the first reaction that I got was "well, you mush have never touched a gun and you much be some kind of pinko commie pansy". I raised the issue of my military background to counter that.

the second reason is directly related to my opinions - while i know that the it is very differnt in the US, my personal experience with combat soldiers is that they don't collect weapons, and are not fascinated by them. the first person that I ever met who collected weapons (and the only non-american that I know who does) is a guy whose father was a hero, but who broke his leg in basic training and wasn't able to finish his training. at 45, he lives every day regreting that he couldn't be a paratrooper, and thus collects weapons and military stuff and talks like he is still a soldier.

as to my personal history - I don't discuss it often, but I don't make a big secret out of it. I spent some time in a recon unit for the IDF at the end of one war and the beggining of another. I was in a few firefights, and a pretty large number of other operations, and had some interesting experiences like riding over a few mines, being shelled a few times and so on. I have a little decoration, but the IDF isn't very big on that, so it really isn't anything special. not that many promotions, although about as many as I wanted or expected. I tought troops, for a while, and led troops, for a while.

for a while I tought gentlemen in a country in africa that no longer exists how to kill each other. they were pretty good, but apperently not good enough to keep their country together.

and, for a while I served as a bodyguard for people who really needed guarding.

there are a hell of a lot of guys out there who have more combat experience than I do, that is actually one of the points that I was trying to make.


----------



## Wayfarer

globetrotter said:


> the second reason is directly related to my opinions - while i know that the it is very differnt in the US, my personal experience with combat soldiers is that they don't collect weapons,


This could be as much cultural as anything else. I know a goodly number of people that either a) moved from Israel to Canada or the US or b) did the inverse (at least for a time). All of them have related to me how living quarters are very small in Israel and people tend to collect much fewer things in general, so no doubt the idea of "collecting" as a hobby would tend to be foriegn to most born and raised there. In the US, the motto of, "He who dies with the most toys wins" is quite wide spread, so again, a cultural thing.

Just a thought.


----------



## JLibourel

Globe, thanks for clarifying your military history.

Anent your position that guys who are the "real thing," who have "been and done," etc., aren't generally gun collectors/enthusiasts, allow me to cite the case of Dave Arnold, one of my best friends and a long-time co-worker. Dave served 17 years in the British South Africa Police in Rhodesia. (Is that the "country that no longer exists" that you were referring to?) He organized their SCUBA unit, in the course of which he got into a swimming pool in SCUBA gear with an 8-foot crocodile! He also organized their SWAT unit. In his later years with that outfit, as the native insurgency increased, he spent a great deal of time campaigning in the bush, where, like yourself, he was involved in a number of firefights, had to ride over mines, etc. He achieved a rank equivalent to that of major in that organization. Eventually, he left the BSAP, largely because he disapproved of their use of torture on the "terrs." He was undoubtedly one of the finest men I have ever known. Sadly, he died of cancer shortly after his 65th birthday a couple of years ago.

Dave was a very avid gun collector and enthusiast. A specialty of his was taking vintage guns in "junked" condition and rebuilding and restoring them to pristine condition. This enabled him to have some very nice guns he could certainly not otherwise have afforded. He had quite a fine assemblage of vintage and modern firearms at the time of his death.

He was also an outstanding and avid competitive shooter in both traditional bullseye and the action shooting sports. The high point of his competitive career was when he was captain of the Rhodesian Combat Pistol team that won the World Combat Pistol Shooting Championship (precursor to IPSC) in 1976. He was so modest that I only learned he had been team captain after his death. We worked together for 10 years and would often shoot against each other. Most often, he would outshoot me, but maybe 30 to 40% of the time, I would outshoot him, which was a source of pride to me.

Here was a man who had been a serious professional that had seen some real action, yet he was most certainly a lifelong gun enthusiast. "The exception that proves the rule," you may argue, but I don't think so.

Or, I could cite another friend of mine, Jim Cirillo, who was "top gun" on the NYPD Stakeout Squad back in the 1960s. In the course of his activity there he killed 11 robbers. The high point was when he single-handedly took out three bad guys holding hostages. Got 'em all with head shots before they could harm the hostages. Long into retirement, he retains a level of enthusiasm for firearms that even strikes me, of all people, as a bit nutty!

I will concur that a good many seasoned, experienced fighting men are not gun enthusiasts, but a good many others most definitely are.


----------



## globetrotter

JL, like I said - I am speaking from my own, personal, experience, which obviously is not global. 

I thought of another point - not to belabor the issue, but let me try to explain why I have brought up the whole military issue to begin with. it comes back to the idea of the skill sets. honestly, I am sure that a hell of a lot of people who learned to shoot as civillians are great at shooting at paper, and I don't mean this to be insulting, just seems like the best way to phrase it. 

when I think of shooting in a house, I think about shooting up or down stairs, with both bad guys and good guys present, in a house with mostly sheet rock walls. to me, I wouldn't even think of shooting in a house if I didn't feel very comfortable with that skill, and I can think of a dozen others, just as important. 

now, in civillian life, how many people have trained in that? for example - you have been shooting for 40 years, give or take, have you every had the chance to practice that kind of situation? 


so, when somebody talks about knowing more about guns than I do, I would usually agree - like I said, I have only fired a limited number of models of firearms, and I am not up to date on literature at all etc. but there are things like that that simply are impossible for a civillian to have a chance in training.


----------



## Wayfarer

GT: Many houses are single floors, but even given two stories, I would submit that you would have a cluster (or single) of bad guys and a cluster (or single) of the good guys. I am not talking every case of course, but I am willing to bet the vast majority that you postulated are broken out thusly. Also, frangibles would solve this problem, no?


----------



## globetrotter

Wayfarer said:


> GT: Many houses are single floors, but even given two stories, I would submit that you would have a cluster (or single) of bad guys and a cluster (or single) of the good guys. I am not talking every case of course, but I am willing to bet the vast majority that you postulated are broken out thusly. Also, frangibles would solve this problem, no?


wayfarer - it was an example, but a good example - lets put it this way, the hitting the targets isn't the real problem (although, if you have only ever shot at a flat angle, shooting up or down can be tricky) its the hitting targets while not hitting anything else and not going through the soft walls and hitting somebody else and not getting blinded by all the flying debris from the walls and not tripping while running and firing that is the issue.

what I was, perhaps clumsily, trying to explain, was my whole discussion of what it means to "know guns". my feeling has always been that the skills that I believe are important in operating a firearm are not nessasarily those that are recognized by most people who were training out side of a military setting.

and this isn't about me, or about what I know or don't know. an infantry man in urban warfare may fire a couple of hundred thousand rounds of ammo in a built up setting, surrounded by other people, and with very complex targets. possibly in a cloud of dust, and at night, and after running upstairs, and in a closed area ringing with the sounds of gunfire. that would be part of his training. comparing that with shooting, even of decades, in a range, is difficult.

that was what I was trying to convey.


----------



## Wayfarer

GT:

Again, frangibles would solve much of the problem you are talking about.

Also, most bad guys committing home invasions (my main concern) might be toughened in terms of accepting violence and not having a concern of hurting me, but most of them (as in 99.99999%) probably have minimal to no training, certainly not years in military urban warfare. They might not hesitate to pull the trigger but they also do not spend either time at the range or in military training/simulations. They are just desperate, tough, mean people.

While I am more than happy to stipulate my general lack of training (I have repeated several times my self-determined level of competency needed for my purposes is hitting CBM at 15 ft), the fact hockey, high school wrestling, and some real life experience in street fights are my only martial arts training, I would still rather face a bad guy entering my dwelling with a gun than without. I think the "reasonable man" standard would agree with me even though I have no where near the training and experience you do.

Now, you speak of "shooting paper" and "putting holes in people". There you are totally on target, no one really knows how they will react in the real situation. However, one need not have been under fire, a mercenary, etc. to know this about themselves. Anyone that has faced down a crow bar getting swung at your noggin or gone into the boards to dig a puck out just *knowing* that opposing wing is coming up behind you full speed with a shoulder dropped, knows pretty much that he/she is going to be able to react in a stress situation. So while I agree with the principle, I think it extends across more life experiences than what you are giving it.

Cheers


----------



## JLibourel

globetrotter said:


> JL, like I said - I am speaking from my own, personal, experience, which obviously is not global.
> 
> I thought of another point - not to belabor the issue, but let me try to explain why I have brought up the whole military issue to begin with. it comes back to the idea of the skill sets. honestly, I am sure that a hell of a lot of people who learned to shoot as civillians are great at shooting at paper, and I don't mean this to be insulting, just seems like the best way to phrase it.
> 
> when I think of shooting in a house, I think about shooting up or down stairs, with both bad guys and good guys present, in a house with mostly sheet rock walls. to me, I wouldn't even think of shooting in a house if I didn't feel very comfortable with that skill, and I can think of a dozen others, just as important.
> 
> now, in civillian life, how many people have trained in that? for example - you have been shooting for 40 years, give or take, have you every had the chance to practice that kind of situation?
> 
> so, when somebody talks about knowing more about guns than I do, I would usually agree - like I said, I have only fired a limited number of models of firearms, and I am not up to date on literature at all etc. but there are things like that that simply are impossible for a civillian to have a chance in training.


As far as house clearing drills, shooting indoors, shooting upstairs, having both hostile and innocent targets, etc., I have actually done quite a bit at various shooting schools in their sundry "fun houses," etc. I have third-level certification with a pistol from Gunsite, Front Sight and Thunder Ranch. In all, I have completed one course at Gunsite, two at Front Sight and three at Thunder Ranch. Admittedly, this is more than the average gun owner is likely to do, but such training is readily available to motivated "civilians" if they want it.


----------



## globetrotter

Wayfarer said:


> GT:
> 
> Again, frangibles would solve much of the problem you are talking about.
> 
> Also, most bad guys committing home invasions (my main concern) might be toughened in terms of accepting violence and not having a concern of hurting me, but most of them (as in 99.99999%) probably have minimal to no training, certainly not years in military urban warfare. They might not hesitate to pull the trigger but they also do not spend either time at the range or in military training/simulations. They are just desperate, tough, mean people.
> 
> While I am more than happy to stipulate my general lack of training (I have repeated several times my self-determined level of competency needed for my purposes is hitting CBM at 15 ft), the fact hockey, high school wrestling, and some real life experience in street fights are my only martial arts training, I would still rather face a bad guy entering my dwelling with a gun than without. I think the "reasonable man" standard would agree with me even though I have no where near the training and experience you do.
> 
> Now, you speak of "shooting paper" and "putting holes in people". There you are totally on target, no one really knows how they will react in the real situation. However, one need not have been under fire, a mercenary, etc. to know this about themselves. Anyone that has faced down a crow bar getting swung at your noggin or gone into the boards to dig a puck out just *knowing* that opposing wing is coming up behind you full speed with a shoulder dropped, knows pretty much that he/she is going to be able to react in a stress situation. So while I agree with the principle, I think it extends across more life experiences than what you are giving it.
> 
> Cheers


wayfarer,

this gets back to the same discussion that has been going on for a while. a long while.

it is my belief, and the same belief that I wrote about 700 posts ago, that the vast majority of such threats could be met in a way that poses less risk to you, your loved ones and nighbors. in principle, I think that most people could do a great job of shooting a burglar. I, myself, am more comfortable with the idea of not shooting a firearm in a house and feel that whacking him with a stick will do the job well.

we have blended together many many differnt arguments - my raising the example of firing up and down stairs was simply an example of one of the skills that one can learn in the military that is almost impossible to gain outside the miltary. the vast majoirty of people on earth have functioned very well for most of history without this particular skill.

in any event, I wish us all that we will never have to try these skills out in the defense of home and hearth.


----------



## Wayfarer

globetrotter said:


> in any event, I wish us all that we will never have to try these skills out in the defense of home and hearth.


That is my wish for all too.

Cheers


----------



## globetrotter

JLibourel said:


> As far as house clearing drills, shooting indoors, shooting upstairs, having both hostile and innocent targets, etc., I have actually done quite a bit at various shooting schools in their sundry "fun houses," etc. I have third-level certification with a pistol from Gunsite, Front Sight and Thunder Ranch. In all, I have completed one course at Gunsite, two at Front Sight and three at Thunder Ranch. Admittedly, this is more than the average gun owner is likely to do, but such training is readily available to motivated "civilians" if they want it.


and I appritiate that - going back to my first post in the thread, 700 or so posts ago- I said something like "unless you are willing to put yourself through military training or go to one of those camps with good civillian facilities...."

I am fully aware that there are several people posting here with excellent dedication and training (and that there are people posting here with excellent military background who both agree and who disagree with me). but I believe you will agree that most gun owners don't go out of their way to get this type of training.

also, and not to make it a pissing match, but just in terms of costs involved, I would be amazed if the civiilian schools could match what the military does in this - and this goes back to the idea that operating a firearm isn't just about hitting the target, it is about operating in an enviroment - what I most remember about this training is being sourounded by people, half deaf from the noise, half blind from the dust, and firing in multiple directions. but if they can duplicate it, all the more power to them.


----------



## ksinc

IDF huh? I guess the joke is on me. Oh well. The internet is one crazy place!

I never caught on even with the whole "5.56 rifle" and Galil comment. When you mentioned Lebanon I was thinking you were like my Dad's friends who were in Lebanon 

I keep forgetting the "world wide" part of the "web".


----------



## globetrotter

sorry - I thought that I had mentioned that, a while back.


----------



## 16412

globetrotter what about hunters that shoot up hill down hill across hill at all kinds of moving tagets all the while watching out for others? This that only military or law enforcers are the only ones that don't just shoot at paper tagets is rather unfair. 

You actually believe that 22's are made for killing people? I don't. Most of them are probably made for target practice and sport.


----------



## globetrotter

WA said:


> globetrotter what about hunters that shoot up hill down hill across hill at all kinds of moving tagets all the while watching out for others? This that only military or law enforcers are the only ones that don't just shoot at paper tagets is rather unfair.


its all a matter of scale - realistically, how many days a year are you out hunting? how many rounds do you fire? how many people are you around? I hate to keep coming back to myself, but that is the only example i have numbers for - maybe 400 times, I fired about 1000 rounds, in an area with another 300-1000 men within the range of my rifle, in a live exersize, while we were all firing the same way, all running, and at least half that time, at night. add to that a good part of the time in smoke cover. I don't mean to offend - but realistically, comparing that to 3 guys out with shotguns is like comparing a surgen to a kid picking at his zits. during all those times, I never saw a person hurt by friendly fire. and that is just talking about the large exersizes.

how many rounds are fired every year in the US on the first day of dear season? I would suggest that in the above exercizes, I was present when about 200 million high velocity rounds were fired, half at night, with a density of people of 500 to half a square kilomoter, everybody moving. and not a single person was wounded.

opening day of deer season - how many rounds fired. how many wounded and killed?



> You actually believe that 22's are made for killing people? I don't. Most of them are probably made for target practice and sport.


I do, and I am not the only one.


----------



## Martinis at 8

It's like Eveready batteries, just keeps going and going :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> I do, and I am not the only one.


No you didn't. Are you freakin' kidding me???!!!

After all your whining & bellyaching - the back-handed accusations - the implied slights at others - and your chest-beating - "those of us who put bullets in people for a living" - after being called out and back-peddling your way all the way home ...

YOU actually DARED to post a link to an article in an * ONLINE MAGAZINE * to defend using a .22LR TO KILL PEOPLE? ROFLMAO!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA

That might be the funniest thing I've ever seen in my entire life!

Did you even bother to read the link to the author? Or are you him??

Well, I will say at least this guy doesn't appear to shoot children armed with rocks for a living and then brag about his combat time. Although, he does appear to be wearing "black pajamas"! LOL

OTOH I'm not the one that spent a week ridiculing US Marine combat veterans out of the side of my mouth that pulled the Japanese and North Koreans out by the roots with a Garand and a bayonet as 'self-publicists' either.



> You're reading an online magazine - an e-zine - published, edited, and written (at least in part) by a mere civilian. * I'm a writer, not a fighter. I'm a citizen, not a soldier.* I'm an average guy, not a superhero. I'm an everyman, not an athlete. In the time I've studied the martial arts and self-defense I've managed to learn concepts and make conclusions about things that I think are worth passing on to other average citizens - in the context of sharing them as such. I don't try to pretend to be anything I'm not and I don't expect anyone to be impressed by anything I say simply because I say they should be or because of whatever credentials I'd like to have and don't. Rather, I think the material I write stands on its own merits.
> 
> *I can't wave around a black belt certificate, a veteran's record, a police officer's badge, or any other claim to authority as a way to support my arguments, because I don't possess any such thing.*


You should have stopped while I could still manage a straight face. 
What was it you were all too happy to chime in and say about Posers and Amatuers? Give. Me. A. Break.


----------



## globetrotter

K,

what the ****? now I don't even understand what you are talking about.


----------



## Desk Jockey

People die because psychopaths and other assorted folks with "issues" have access to firearms. By the dozen every month do they die in this nation. In other countries, they don't to the same degree. Why? It's not because we're a violent people bent on "transport(ing) their violence to the rest of the world." No, it's because there is such ready access to the method of their murder, guns.

When you get down to brass tacks, as it were, I haven't the slightest problem with a hunter's rifle or for that matter my Dad's dust-gathering shotgun. I have a problem with assault rifles, handguns, large caliber rifles and, in a rather topical fashion, high-capacity magazines. These above and beyond all the rest of the guns that ever existed are meant to kill a lot of people as easy and as quickly as possible. All of these have been banned in our republic's history but because of the machinations of the pro-gun lobby are as legal (though more difficult) as buying a stick of gum.

There is *no* justifiable reason for the public to own these weapons. Sure you can say, as have many in this thread, that you need them to ensure the survival of our republic's democracy and your rights but when was the last time that it was necessary to file a tax return by the barrel of a gun? Or convince your representatives in Congress to pass a bill by menacing them with the Glock (with, of course, the 15 round magazine) in your shoulder holster? Or influence the ruling of a judge by meeting their family at home with, yes, a .22 handgun?

Don't give me panaceas about guns, I've said goodbye to more than I've wanted too because of their "legal" use.


----------



## Hombrerana

Well, I cannot resist adding a thought or two, especially as my earlier post proved to be so controversial; perhaps we can set some kind of record (much to the dismay of some I’m sure).

I’m not trying to stir the pot too much, but largely to provide clarification, through random musings. I agree with much of what has been said, heck, I even saw a post from Kav that I largely agreed with (maybe I was just happy that I was able to grasp his meaning on the first go – I’m none too bright and some of his stuff seems a bit Pauline in nature). There have been many posts since my last and it took some time to catch up; please forgive if I don’t quote all directly, but if the shoe fits…

As for only being able to acquire proper training through the military or an elite LE unit, this may have been largely true at one time, back when there were only a handful of schools (and the off-res after dark MP5SD shoots of one were legendary). At that time there were no kill houses (shoot houses before we got pc) for civilians; ballistic houses were even few and far between for military and SWAT use. There was no such thing as Simunition, only wax and then to some extent paintball. I largely believed what I was told at that time, that there were two kinds of shooters - combat and target. That is not to say that there was no crossover, there was. We had some guys who had shot Steel Challenge, Bianchi Cup, etc. As a matter of fact, my first shooting course was from one such competitive shooter who also happened to be a teammate. However, the availability to train to a high level, not just on the fundamentals of shooting fast, but on the proper mindset and learning how to actually fight with a gun (not to be confused with hitting steel very fast) was not available to many civilians.

Now we have a virtual cornucopia of tactical training academies that, for a price, will stamp every type of qualification on your diploma. Many of these schools are not only teaching fundamentals of marksmanship, but complete fighting systems, from ground fighting to CQB. No more is it just a handful of competition shooters teaching fundamentals to operators who then develop tactics, but practitioners are teaching combat to all. While it is highly unlikely that many civilians are going to attain the across the board war fighting skills of our military elite, who continue to live those skills on a day to day basis after the particular training course has ended, it is quite possible for someone with no military or police background to become quite proficient.

Guns are neat. My collection is not large, but I enjoy it and some of the guns I own have quite a lot of significance to me, aside from their utility. I don’t have a race gun; I don’t need one, as I’m not shooting competitively, let alone in some kind of unlimited class. I would not mind having one; however, if I did it would certainly not be my standard carry. I think the shooting sports are great; however, when we make a choice to carry a firearm, I believe that we have just stepped out of the realm of collections, hobbies and sports.


If we chose to carry a firearm, it should be with the understanding that we are ready, willing and able to use it competently and safely in the defense or our lives or the lives of another innocent person. That is a grave responsibility, not one to be taken lightly. Wearing a firearm because it gives you some connection to a long lost relative, makes you feel like a tough guy, or because you think it makes you look cool, is stupid unless you are doing it in the privacy and safety (both for you and everyone else) of your own home. Now I’m not saying that one shouldn’t carry a gun with personal significance, but that should not be the primary reason for carrying. Now, from a practical standpoint, carrying a particular gun based on its “cool factor” is simply immature. In my humble opinion a decision of such gravity should be made on more practical reasons that simple aesthetics. That sort of thing is fine with loafers; however, if you are careless with your race loafer, you are not liable to kill the good guy standing next to the bad guy you just missed because you inadvertently squeezed off a round with a too-light-for-a-combat-loafer trigger pull in the middle of your horrendously flawed draw stroke.

Most people who carry guns are not competent. Every couple of years I have to go do a recertification for my state firearms instructorship. It never ceases to amaze me how many of the instructors have difficulty passing the qualification. Now, most of these folks are not running well regarded schools, but rather work in some local gun shops and/or are training security guards but it is still quite sad that the state is certifying these people. And a sad commentary that these are the experts! While some people know better, many do not. They go to the range, one of these guys gets hold of them, helps them to get 3 out of 10 in the A zone at 5 yards then tells them they should put a pistol on their hip and run around in public! Much of the LE community (both local and Federal) is not much better. Most agencies give minimal training, and then let their officers shoot a qualification as many times as they need to pass. The reason that cops loose gunfights is not because the gang bangers and gangsta’s are using better techniques, but because they are horribly undertrained! If the bad guy knows what is about to happen, is aggressive, isn’t scared and thinks his way through it, he is probably going to get the jump on a cop who isn’t aggressive, doesn’t know what is about to happen and doesn’t have a long history of good training to fall back on. As for the “modern technique” as popularized by Col. Cooper; it is no longer modern. No elite unit today in this country is still teaching it, and Gunsite is the only major school (to my knowledge) that adheres to it. As for pistols, some of our nation’s most elite warriors are still carrying Sig 9mm’s and winning gunfights with them. Why would they carry such humble pistols? Because they work.

Sorry about the “gun queers” comment if it offends. It has always been an acceptable term in most gun circles I’ve been in, and people understand that it is not a disparaging remark, but rather a term for those who are more interested in the guns themselves, rather than in the shooting, or are considerably more knowledgeable than their peers vis-à-vis ballistics, gun specs, etc. For instance, if you happen to know the ballistic coefficient of your favorite bullet that you have worked up for your pet load in your 25-06, then you would be considered a gun queer by your friends who may shoot well, but have never really given a rat’s behind about what kind of powder of how many grains of it were in their cartridges. I have been accused of being a “gun queer” and didn’t take offense; however, if someone were to call me a “gun nut” I would be slightly offended, as that term is usually reserved for use by the anti gun crowd for those that like to shoot.

Chances are that you are not going to get much “killin time” in as a Naval Officer, unless you choose a very distinct and difficult career path (even then there is no guarantee). Also, it is not really well thought of to make a claim based on something you are going to do, or on something that your father/grandfather/great-grandfather did. If you don’t feel as if your current life experience qualifies you to say something, keep your mouth shut until you have the requisite experience - just a word to the wise from someone who has eaten a lot of crow. Oh, good luck in your naval career - fair winds and following seas.


----------



## JLibourel

Desk Jockey said:


> When you get down to brass tacks, as it were, I haven't the slightest problem with a hunter's rifle or for that matter my Dad's dust-gathering shotgun. I have a problem with assault rifles, handguns, large caliber rifles and, in a rather topical fashion, high-capacity magazines.


Aren't you being a little inconsistent here? With one breath you say, "I haven't the slightest problem a with a hunter's rifle," in the the next you say, "I have a problem with...large caliber rifles...." Aren't a lot of hunting rifles pretty "large caliber"? At least, in my book they are.

Or, are you talking about things like those Barrett and other rifles in .50 BMG? Have you ever handled or shot one of those things? They are so big, heavy and unwieldy that their suitability for almost any kind of criminal misuse is almost zero. Here in California, they were outlawed--a modern day, feelgood witch burning!


----------



## ksinc

Desk Jockey said:


> People die because psychopaths and other assorted folks with "issues" have access to firearms. By the dozen every month do they die in this nation. In other countries, they don't to the same degree. Why? It's not because we're a violent people bent on "transport(ing) their violence to the rest of the world." No, it's because there is such ready access to the method of their murder, guns.
> 
> When you get down to brass tacks, as it were, I haven't the slightest problem with a hunter's rifle or for that matter my Dad's dust-gathering shotgun. I have a problem with assault rifles, handguns, large caliber rifles and, in a rather topical fashion, high-capacity magazines. These above and beyond all the rest of the guns that every existed are meant to kill a lot of people as easy and as quickly as possible. All of these have been banned in our republic's history but because of the machinations of the pro-gun lobby are as legal (though more difficult) as buying a stick of gum.
> 
> There is *no* justifiable reason for the public to own these weapons. Sure you can say, as have many in this thread, that you need them to ensure the survival of our republic's democracy and your rights but when was the last time that it was necessary to file a tax return by the barrel of a gun? Or convince your representatives in Congress to pass a bill by menacing them with the Glock (with, of course, the 15 round magazine) in your shoulder holster? Or influence the ruling of a judge by meeting their family at home with, yes, a .22 handgun?
> 
> Don't give me panaceas about guns, I've said goodbye to more than I've wanted too because of their "legal" use.


I have ZERO respect for the people whose only issue with guns is not that they are for killing, but who does the killing and who gets killed by them or what type of gun it is that kills them.

Both the Czars and the Communists tried that system and call me a skeptic, but I prefer to be on the giving end of that stick.

Sorry, but your answer is "molon labe!" Good luck with that too.


----------



## JLibourel

Hombrerana,

I have been involved in the firearms culture for going on 54 years. For almost 28 of those, I have been involved professionally editing firearms magazines. Until I just read it in your current post, I have never, ever heard the term "gun queer." It appears to be synonymous with the older "gun nut." I prefer the latter term.

Dunno about "across the board fighting skills," but I have shot pistols with and against (competitively) Navy SEALS and Delta force veterans. I was not, by and large, terribly impressed...and, believe me, I'm no Robbie Leatham!

Have you been a SEAL? Your user name would suggest it?

I never thought of SIG 9mm's as being "humble" pistols. An old Smith & Wesson .38 Special M&P maybe (but still a damn good gun for most people).

Your allegation that only Gunsite still teaches the Modern Technique as promulgated by my old pal Jeff is surprising. I thought most of these schools--Front Sight, Thunder Ranch, etc.--were grounded in the Modern Technique, but then I haven't attended one in over 8 years. Has there been a revolution in methodology that I am unaware of?


----------



## Laxplayer

WA said:


> globetrotter what about hunters that shoot up hill down hill across hill at all kinds of moving tagets all the while watching out for others? This that only military or law enforcers are the only ones that don't just shoot at paper tagets is rather unfair.
> 
> *You actually believe that 22's are made for killing people? I don't. Most of them are probably made for target practice and sport*.


Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker, used a .22 and a .25 caliber handgun. 
https://members.tripod.com/~VanessaWest/ramirez.html


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

Just checking in. I see y'all are still at it. 740 posts. I have the Guiness book on 24-hour alert. Ripley's is also aware of the thread.

Well, pip-pip, tally-ho. Carry on, gents.

Wait! I see that may be construed as an opinion. I meant 'carry on the debate', not 'carry the Taurus'. 

And remember: People kill people. Moderators just quiet insurrections.


----------



## ksinc

Laxplayer said:


> Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker, used a .22 and a .25 caliber handgun.
> https://members.tripod.com/~VanessaWest/ramirez.html


While true, you can also kill someone with a ballpoint pen, but that doesn't mean it was "made for killing people."

I think discussions of caliber are generally pointless. There are certainly some specific guns in .22lr made specifically for killing. In most cases they are for killing animals, even in a military context (guard dogs) like the old hush puppy and modern equivalent the 'green hornet'.

https://www.snipercentral.com/greenhornet.htm

FWIW, the IDF has a reputation for shooting people (particularly civilians protesting/rioting) in the knees with suppressed .22lr - however it's just a rumor AFAIK.

The Air Force survival rifle is also in .22lr


----------



## Hombrerana

Desk Jockey said:


> When you get down to brass tacks, as it were, I haven't the slightest problem with a hunter's rifle or for that matter my Dad's dust-gathering shotgun. I have a problem with assault rifles, handguns, large caliber rifles and, in a rather topical fashion, high-capacity magazines. These above and beyond all the rest of the guns that every existed are meant to kill a lot of people as easy and as quickly as possible. All of these have been banned in our republic's history but because of the machinations of the pro-gun lobby are as legal (though more difficult) as buying a stick of gum.


This sounds suspiciously familiar to the talking pionts from one of yesterday's NPR segments (I don't normally listen to NPR but was in a car for quite a while yesterday and had no AM reception).

This guy kept going on about how the "nicotine" of the gun industry was lethality &#8230; hi-cap mags &#8230; large calibers etc.

Well maybe if the university had had a two magazine maximum and you could still only buy 10 rd magazines, than this guy only would have had 20 rounds (well 21 - assuming he was following the rules).

Lunacy. If someone there had been armed, that might have ended things more quickly.

By and large it is the same people who are for gun control who are the first to second guess cops after force is used. Who want to regulate "hate speach" but rail agains any type of laws upholding public decency under the grounds that they violate First Amendment rights. These are the same people who are so quick to defend the civil rights of criminals, who think that we need to be more concerned with the rights of pedophiles than the rights of children. Well, what happens when those children grow up? What do they do with the rage and the hurt they feel against the society that was supposed to protect them?

Guns are not the problem; the problem is our society that does not have proper consequences, that calls right wrong and wrong right. If we were to quit glorifying violence in our culture of entertainment (entertainment is our culture at this point) and start holding people accountable for their actions, that would have a much bigger impact on our murder rates than more gun control.


----------



## Hombrerana

JL,

That is correct. As for the "modern technique" I assume you are refering to the weaver stance? If so then yes, it is not mainstream anymore, although a few schools may still be teaching it (just last week I talked a guy out of spending his money at Gunsite for that reason). Most are using a "modern isoscoles" (personally I don't like the term). I'm not around too many competitive shooters any more, but I don't know of any that are using a Weaver. This of course coming from a former Mid-South fan (although it has been 10 years since I've been there). I know a lot of guys shot well with that tecnique; however, tactics do change and sometimes improve. Just like there were many competent martial artists back in the day, now an equally competent MMA guy will probably eat their lunch.

While I don't know enough gun writers to make any disparaging remarks about them or their shooting abilities:icon_smile: , I have known some D-boys and team guys who were fine shots, and what's more, knew how to fight. Having said that, I've also known some who were not terribly impressive with the pistol. Again, combat is different from competition, and individuals are just that. Would be interesting sometime to compare notes though, curious as to who left you underwhelmed.

As for the Sig, some would probably call it "ugly" and "black" with "plastic" grips, maybe even unstylish, and not nearly as cool as a 1911. Perhaps "humble" was simply a bit of hyperbole.


All that aside, they guys who are doing the deal today, right now, are better than they have ever been. As a matter of fact, I just heard a pretty hair raising story the other day about a guy who's pistol skills saved his life (after losing his primary) in a room with 4 baddies.

God Bless America - Now maybe that is something we can all agree on.


----------



## 16412

Laxplayer said:


> Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker, used a .22 and a .25 caliber handgun.
> https://members.tripod.com/~VanessaWest/ramirez.html


I think most 22's are not made for killing, but a beginners gun to learn how to hit, usaully paper, targets. Under certain circumstances I would have no problem being able to kill somebody with 22. Cars, knives, baseball bats, drugs, ropes, concrete the list of tools and methods of killing people is endless. Probably 98% of 22's are not bought for shooting people.

This one man taught his daughter how to shoot. When she got old enough to own a gun he bought her a 22, she was probably 9. One time he came home drunk and she was sitting on the porch with 22 waiting for him, she was probably 12, and told him to go somewhere else for the night, so he did. Since he knew very well how good of a shot she was and he didn't want to visit the doctor he went somewhere else that night. This story is not about killing is it? Guns are not only used for killing as wacks say. She very much would have shot him- the leg, the arm, but never to kill.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

On a long drive home from Manhattan late last night I heard an interesting conversation on one of the satellite channels which went something like this:

_"It would seem that the single overarching goal of political correctness, of the 'dumbing down' teaching prevalent in U.S. schools, and of the entire 'gentler society' corps of today lies in the removal of the 'survival gene' from the human species."_

Objectively reading this thread might lead one to believe that they are about halfway there.
...


----------



## globetrotter

ksinc said:


> YOU actually DARED to post a link to an article in an * ONLINE MAGAZINE * to defend using a .22LR TO KILL PEOPLE? ROFLMAO!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> .


hey, I figured that a wack job would have more credibility with you gun nuts than I would. give me a break - you spend a week berating me for only using personal opinions and eperience, so I do a web search and you go nuts?! take your ritalin


----------



## globetrotter

WA said:


> I think most 22's are not made for killing, but a beginners gun to learn how to hit, usaully paper, targets. Under certain circumstances I would have no problem being able to kill somebody with 22. Cars, knives, baseball bats, drugs, ropes, concrete the list of tools and methods of killing people is endless. Probably 98% of 22's are not bought for shooting people.
> 
> This one man taught his daughter how to shoot. When she got old enough to own a gun he bought her a 22, she was probably 9. One time he came home drunk and she was sitting on the porch with 22 waiting for him, she was probably 12, and told him to go somewhere else for the night, so he did. Since he knew very well how good of a shot she was and he didn't want to visit the doctor he went somewhere else that night. This story is not about killing is it? Guns are not only used for killing as wacks say. She very much would have shot him- the leg, the arm, but never to kill.


I would nominate this guy for father of the year.

1. leaves his 12 year old daughter home alone while he goes out to get drunk

2. but, so that she is safe, he leaves her with loaded and unlocked firearms

3. has tought her to shoot him in the arms or legs if he messes with her.

what a dad!!

actually, shooting somebody in the arm or leg is a massivly stupid idea, if you dont want to kill them. you really should only aim a weapon at somebody you are willing to kill


----------



## globetrotter

ksinc said:


> FWIW, the IDF has a reputation for shooting people (particularly civilians protesting/rioting) in the knees with suppressed .22lr - however it's just a rumor AFAIK.


no, we used a 5.56 plastic bullet. the suppresseed 22 was an experiment for a few months, pretty successful, actual.


----------



## globetrotter

I am going to shut up for a little while, I have yet to see something that H writes that I disagree with substantially, I'm going to let him make his very articulate arguments.



Hombrerana said:


> Well, I cannot resist adding a thought or two, especially as my earlier post proved to be so controversial; perhaps we can set some kind of record (much to the dismay of some I'm sure).
> 
> I'm not trying to stir the pot too much, but largely to provide clarification, through random musings. I agree with much of what has been said, heck, I even saw a post from Kav that I largely agreed with (maybe I was just happy that I was able to grasp his meaning on the first go - I'm none too bright and some of his stuff seems a bit Pauline in nature). There have been many posts since my last and it took some time to catch up; please forgive if I don't quote all directly, but if the shoe fits&#8230;
> 
> As for only being able to acquire proper training through the military or an elite LE unit, this may have been largely true at one time, back when there were only a handful of schools (and the off-res after dark MP5SD shoots of one were legendary). At that time there were no kill houses (shoot houses before we got pc) for civilians; ballistic houses were even few and far between for military and SWAT use. There was no such thing as Simunition, only wax and then to some extent paintball. I largely believed what I was told at that time, that there were two kinds of shooters - combat and target. That is not to say that there was no crossover, there was. We had some guys who had shot Steel Challenge, Bianchi Cup, etc. As a matter of fact, my first shooting course was from one such competitive shooter who also happened to be a teammate. However, the availability to train to a high level, not just on the fundamentals of shooting fast, but on the proper mindset and learning how to actually fight with a gun (not to be confused with hitting steel very fast) was not available to many civilians.
> 
> Now we have a virtual cornucopia of tactical training academies that, for a price, will stamp every type of qualification on your diploma. Many of these schools are not only teaching fundamentals of marksmanship, but complete fighting systems, from ground fighting to CQB. No more is it just a handful of competition shooters teaching fundamentals to operators who then develop tactics, but practitioners are teaching combat to all. While it is highly unlikely that many civilians are going to attain the across the board war fighting skills of our military elite, who continue to live those skills on a day to day basis after the particular training course has ended, it is quite possible for someone with no military or police background to become quite proficient.
> 
> Guns are neat. My collection is not large, but I enjoy it and some of the guns I own have quite a lot of significance to me, aside from their utility. I don't have a race gun; I don't need one, as I'm not shooting competitively, let alone in some kind of unlimited class. I would not mind having one; however, if I did it would certainly not be my standard carry. I think the shooting sports are great; however, when we make a choice to carry a firearm, I believe that we have just stepped out of the realm of collections, hobbies and sports.
> 
> If we chose to carry a firearm, it should be with the understanding that we are ready, willing and able to use it competently and safely in the defense or our lives or the lives of another innocent person. That is a grave responsibility, not one to be taken lightly. Wearing a firearm because it gives you some connection to a long lost relative, makes you feel like a tough guy, or because you think it makes you look cool, is stupid unless you are doing it in the privacy and safety (both for you and everyone else) of your own home. Now I'm not saying that one shouldn't carry a gun with personal significance, but that should not be the primary reason for carrying. Now, from a practical standpoint, carrying a particular gun based on its "cool factor" is simply immature. In my humble opinion a decision of such gravity should be made on more practical reasons that simple aesthetics. That sort of thing is fine with loafers; however, if you are careless with your race loafer, you are not liable to kill the good guy standing next to the bad guy you just missed because you inadvertently squeezed off a round with a too-light-for-a-combat-loafer trigger pull in the middle of your horrendously flawed draw stroke.
> 
> Most people who carry guns are not competent. Every couple of years I have to go do a recertification for my state firearms instructorship. It never ceases to amaze me how many of the instructors have difficulty passing the qualification. Now, most of these folks are not running well regarded schools, but rather work in some local gun shops and/or are training security guards but it is still quite sad that the state is certifying these people. And a sad commentary that these are the experts! While some people know better, many do not. They go to the range, one of these guys gets hold of them, helps them to get 3 out of 10 in the A zone at 5 yards then tells them they should put a pistol on their hip and run around in public! Much of the LE community (both local and Federal) is not much better. Most agencies give minimal training, and then let their officers shoot a qualification as many times as they need to pass. The reason that cops loose gunfights is not because the gang bangers and gangsta's are using better techniques, but because they are horribly undertrained! If the bad guy knows what is about to happen, is aggressive, isn't scared and thinks his way through it, he is probably going to get the jump on a cop who isn't aggressive, doesn't know what is about to happen and doesn't have a long history of good training to fall back on. As for the "modern technique" as popularized by Col. Cooper; it is no longer modern. No elite unit today in this country is still teaching it, and Gunsite is the only major school (to my knowledge) that adheres to it. As for pistols, some of our nation's most elite warriors are still carrying Sig 9mm's and winning gunfights with them. Why would they carry such humble pistols? Because they work.
> 
> Sorry about the "gun queers" comment if it offends. It has always been an acceptable term in most gun circles I've been in, and people understand that it is not a disparaging remark, but rather a term for those who are more interested in the guns themselves, rather than in the shooting, or are considerably more knowledgeable than their peers vis-à-vis ballistics, gun specs, etc. For instance, if you happen to know the ballistic coefficient of your favorite bullet that you have worked up for your pet load in your 25-06, then you would be considered a gun queer by your friends who may shoot well, but have never really given a rat's behind about what kind of powder of how many grains of it were in their cartridges. I have been accused of being a "gun queer" and didn't take offense; however, if someone were to call me a "gun nut" I would be slightly offended, as that term is usually reserved for use by the anti gun crowd for those that like to shoot.
> 
> Chances are that you are not going to get much "killin time" in as a Naval Officer, unless you choose a very distinct and difficult career path (even then there is no guarantee). Also, it is not really well thought of to make a claim based on something you are going to do, or on something that your father/grandfather/great-grandfather did. If you don't feel as if your current life experience qualifies you to say something, keep your mouth shut until you have the requisite experience - just a word to the wise from someone who has eaten a lot of crow. Oh, good luck in your naval career - fair winds and following seas.


----------



## yachtie

I couldn't agree more. This should be printed on the front of any application for concealed carry.



> If we chose to carry a firearm, it should be with the understanding that we are ready, willing and able to use it competently and safely in the defense or our lives or the lives of another innocent person. That is a grave responsibility, not one to be taken lightly. Wearing a firearm because it gives you some connection to a long lost relative, makes you feel like a tough guy, or because you think it makes you look cool, is stupid unless you are doing it in the privacy and safety (both for you and everyone else) of your own home. Now I'm not saying that one shouldn't carry a gun with personal significance, but that should not be the primary reason for carrying. Now, from a practical standpoint, carrying a particular gun based on its "cool factor" is simply immature.


----------



## Wayfarer

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> On a long drive home from Manhattan late last night I heard an interesting conversation on one of the satellite channels which went something like this:
> 
> _"It would seem that the single overarching goal of political correctness, of the 'dumbing down' teaching prevalent in U.S. schools, and of the entire 'gentler society' corps of today lies in the removal of the 'survival gene' from the human species."_
> 
> Objectively reading this thread might lead one to believe that they are about halfway there.
> ...


That is a good quote AK. If you do not mind my asking, who said it? Is he national or a local guy?

I disagree with this statement though, in that I think we are diverging into two segments, a hyper-violent one that looks to violence as their first method of dispute resolution, and then the more mainstream one, inculcated with years of PC education, that would willingly que up without a fuss for extermination if they were told it was the latest fashion or to save the seals.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

Wayfarer said:


> That is a good quote AK. If you do not mind my asking, who said it? Is he national or a local guy?
> 
> I disagree with this statement though, in that I think we are diverging into two segments, a hyper-violent one that looks to violence as their first method of dispute resolution, and then the more mainstream one, inculcated with years of PC education, that would willingly que up without a fuss for extermination if they were told it was the latest fashion or to save the seals.


We obviously live in different enviroments. Here in East Hampton we righteously save dolphins. And we do wear only the most fashionable to do our saving.

I didn't attribute the quote because it was enlightening on its own. Attribution will bring all the usual replies.


----------



## yachtie

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> On a long drive home from Manhattan late last night I heard an interesting conversation on one of the satellite channels which went something like this:
> 
> _"It would seem that the single overarching goal of political correctness, of the 'dumbing down' teaching prevalent in U.S. schools, and of the entire 'gentler society' corps of today lies in the removal of the 'survival gene' from the human species."_
> 
> Objectively reading this thread might lead one to believe that they are about halfway there.
> ...


Interesting article posted by RomeoDandy on the fashion forum pertainent to this:

https://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzEzYzQ0Y2MyZjNlNjY1ZTEzMTA0MGRmM2EyMTQ0NjY

I think what is lacking is an application of the virtue of prudence today. Too violent or too passive are both imprudent.


----------



## ksinc

Globe, you could listen to Hombre except ... unfortunately, this was brought up by someone calling people amatuers and you went on your realistic training soapbox.

On the subject of the Modern Technique ...

I have shot extensively with a couple of former SEALs and one SEAL from the Vietnam era - they both practice two ways: Modern Technique and Point Shooting. The modern technique is for sighted, slow fire. Point shooting because the odds are that if you need to use your pistol, your other hand will be bored are ZERO. At best it might be holding your jammed M4, at worst you might be on a rope or ladder, etc.

In general, cops don't practice enough and their training breaks down under stress. This is why they keep reverting to unsighted fire. I give you one of Col. Cooper's last insights circa 2002.



> The issue of unsighted fire in defensive combat keeps cropping up. Its advocates suggest that since people are going to use it anyway, we might as well encourage it. I think this is wrong. What people are "going to do anyway" is hardly a proper reason for teaching it. It may be that most people will fire without sights when confronting lethal hostility, but that is a reason for the atrocious missing that we read about in the newspapers. Here at school we do not care about how things are done wrong. We do care about how to teach people to do things right. The modern technique gets the hits. If only a few people understand the modern technique that is regrettable, but that should not lead us astray. In the large view it is always only a few people who do anything right. We can increase that number, and that is why we teach marksmanship.


Q: Who is atrociously missing? A: COPS.

He's not talking about Rex Applegate, Jelly Bryce, and Bill Jordan - Guys like them DIDN'T MISS. These men were right all along about cops and the 'combat crouch' or 'FBI crouch' point shooting style they perfected. Bill Jordan being a cop vs. Cooper being a Marine knew that cops could and would never perfect the Modern Technique until it became instinctual. Instead he perfected the instinctual style. He was a practical man that negotiated for a lighter K-frame 357 so cops could carry it more comfortably and would carry it even off-duty instead of carrying pocket pistols off-duty. I know that some people here aren't sure whether to respect him as a gunman or not. LOL

Here's a neat quote from a gun magazine - American Handgunner - "The Weaver stance is -- don't be shocked -- obsolete. none of the top competitive shooters use it and police departments no longer train with Cooper's outmoded technique."

That's interesting because at the Lethal Force Institute (Masaad Ayoob) teaches Weaver, Chapman (modified Weaver), and the Isoceles from a "combat crouch" which is for and I quote "when you need an immediate barricade (such as behind a car engine block)". The weaver and chapman are taught under StressFire Marksmanship using the "Tueller Drill".



> This demonstrates first-hand that even the most physically challenged members of our class could cover 21 feet in under two seconds! Never again think that a guy aggressively brandishing a knife or baseball bat 20 feet away is not a lethal threat!


Both the isocoles and modern isocoles do offer a good base for steady controlled fire (like when you are behind a barricade). I feel I should point out that both Isoceles stances offer very poor, limited weapon retention when you are not. They also put a person's balance too far forward and puts them in a fixed/static position. You are actually taught in Modern Iso to turn your head and arms like a "turret" from this fixed position! They also put the weapon too far away from the body and lock the both elbows. As Mr. L mentioned - None of the combat pistol instructors teach it, and none of the special forces use it, but competitive shooters LOVE IT! It dominates competitive target shooting. You know - shooting paper! LOL

Most civilian/police handgun combat takes place within 10 feet. It's almost impossible to draw if you already haven't before someone can be on top of you. It's the height of posership to think you are going to draw, spread your legs out past shoulder width, and then extend your gun 2.5 feet from your body against a hardened street thug within 10 feet of you and he won't make you eat it. On top of it all. You are actually PUSHING the gun away from you.

IF YOU ARE A CIVILIAN - which this thread was about remember? Gentleman pistols? AND A SOMETIMES SHOOTER the iso stances will get you killed. The modern technique has the highest weapon retention ability. You have both hands on the gun and You push/pull with the right and left hand which covers the trigger frame and creates tension. Still, I think most people scared to death are going to point-and-shoot one handed. That is what Applegate thought. That is what Jordan thought.

Take it out of guns. Think about instinctual human movement. Think about ergonomics. Think about what you are doing right now - using a computer. Why was the mouse invented? Why is it the most intuitive user interface? Because research was done that the most basic instinct we learn as babies is to point one-handed, even before we learn to walk and talk. In the most stressful situation of your life, you want to keep it as simple and instinctual as possible unless you train so much your training overcomes your human instinct. How many civilians and cops do you think train THAT MUCH? Well other than a few 'gun nuts' not many.

Yes, all the target/competitive shooters now use Modern Isoceles. It's faster if no one is shooting back at you. And you get all set up and spread out before the 'buzzer' sounds. Funny how someone was just dogging those target/competitive shooters out a few pages ago as 'posers with race guns' was it? Who was that again?


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> hey, I figured that a wack job would have more credibility with you gun nuts than I would. give me a break - you spend a week berating me for only using personal opinions and eperience, so I do a web search and you go nuts?! take your ritalin


yeah, yeah ... nice try ... this is me not buying it.

I seriously doubt that anyone promoting isocoles or modern isoceles has ever been under fire or even in a real shoot house. Have you actually seen a team try to clear a building in Modern Isoceles??? LMAO

I seriously doubt that the guy that thinks Bill Jordan is just another gun writer and the guy promoting the iso is the knowledgable and articulate professional has ever fired a handgun in a combat situation. Maybe he has shot 1000s of rounds in a Galil, but not a handgun.

Hombre, no wonder you get called a 'gun queer'.


----------



## globetrotter

ksinc said:


> I seriously doubt that the guy that thinks Bill Jordan is just another gun writer and the guy promoting the iso is the knowledgable and articulate professional has ever fired a handgun in a combat situation. Maybe he has shot 1000s of rounds in a Galil, but not a handgun.
> 
> .


hey, when did I ever promote the martialist or call him knowledgable or articulate?

lets cut to the fact here, K - I have been very straightforward about myslef and my beliefs. I don't scorn civillians - I just think it perfectly logical that a person with thousands of hours of training will have a diffeent skill set than one with dozens. I have never suggested disarming the population, I have stated my personal opinion that owning one gun is better than two, and that guns should not be treated as jewlery or toys.

the fact is that you are an adult who likes to play dress up - that is the basic situation. you like to buy expensive toys and pretend that you had the balls to actually enlist, instead of dreaming about it for the rest of your life.

if you are 38, the US was at war when you were at a prime age to be a rifleman. what kept you back? why didn't you spring for the real thing, instead of playing cops and robbers for the next decades?

as to firing a handgun in combat - no, I haven't. i didn't say that I did. I have fired long weapons in combat, and I have carried a handgun into combat situations. what have you done with your life?


----------



## globetrotter

ksinc said:


> I seriously doubt that anyone promoting isocoles or modern isoceles has ever been under fire or even in a real shoot house. Have you actually seen a team try to clear a building in Modern Isoceles??? LMAO
> 
> .


just did a google search to figure out what you were ranting about - I have no idea what isocoles is, like I mentioned before, I have a life.

and honestly, I don't know if this is just a huge cultural difference between the way the different militaries work or not - I was never tought, nor did I teach in this way.

we were tought to shoot, probrably in a matter of a few days. then we spent an additional 400 or so days in training, learning to shoot while moving in formation. we got back to the range every now and again, but it was considered a relativly minor part of our life and our training.

to some extent, the only way I can describe my understanding of this is to have two cheifs talk and one yelling at the other "but how fast can you open a can!! I can open a can faster than you. do you know the weaver manuver for opening cans?!? I do!! how can you be a chief if you don't know the weaver manuver for opening cans?!?


----------



## Martinis at 8

This is too much! :icon_smile_big: 

Well I gotz to unsubscribe from this thread now.

Toodles,

M8


----------



## Wayfarer

globetrotter said:


> just did a google search to figure out what you were ranting about - I have no idea what isocoles is,* like I mentioned before, I have a life. *


GT wins the thread, there is no coming back from that insult! :devil:

Of course, GT helped make this thread sooooo long


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> hey, when did I ever promote the martialist or call him knowledgable or articulate?
> 
> lets cut to the fact here, K - I have been very straightforward about myslef and my beliefs. I don't scorn civillians - I just think it perfectly logical that a person with thousands of hours of training will have a diffeent skill set than one with dozens. I have never suggested disarming the population, I have stated my personal opinion that owning one gun is better than two, and that guns should not be treated as jewlery or toys.
> 
> the fact is that you are an adult who likes to play dress up - that is the basic situation. you like to buy expensive toys and pretend that you had the balls to actually enlist, instead of dreaming about it for the rest of your life.
> 
> *if you are 38, the US was at war when you were at a prime age to be a rifleman. what kept you back? why didn't you spring for the real thing, instead of playing cops and robbers for the next decades?*
> 
> as to firing a handgun in combat - no, I haven't. i didn't say that I did. I have fired long weapons in combat, and I have carried a handgun into combat situations. what have you done with your life?


I believe you are referring to 1986 when I graduated high school and was nominated to the U.S. Naval Academy. Although, my Father was in Vietnam a few years before I was born in 1968 and my GrandFather was in Guam in WW2, I'm not quite sure which U.S. War you are referring. Grenada? LOL

By the time Gulf War I came along I was 23? and making a six figure salary. Two years later, I started my own company in 1993. At the moment, I'm sitting on my a$$ laughing at you while I procrastinate studying for the CPA Exam and stare at my MBA on the wall.

Thanks for asking.

We can't play dress up? I thought this was a clothing site? NOW YOU TELL ME!


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> hey, when did I ever promote the martialist or call him knowledgable or articulate?


I was clearly refering to this post. I believe you were referring to Hombre.



globetrotter said:


> I am going to shut up for a little while, I have yet to see something that H writes that I disagree with substantially, I'm going to let him make his very articulate arguments.


But since you brought up the Martialist ...



WA said:


> You actually believe that 22's are made for killing people? I don't. Most of them are probably made for target practice and sport.





Globetrotter said:


> I do, and I am not the only one.


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> just did a google search to figure out what you were ranting about - I have no idea what isocoles is, like I mentioned before, I have a life.


In hindsight, perhaps you should have checked google before you posted your characterization of Hombre's post as "very articulate arguments" that you did not "disagree with substantially"?

I'm just saying.


----------



## globetrotter

ksinc said:


> I was clearly refering to this post. I believe you were referring to Hombre.


oh, yes, I did refer to hombre as articulate. and, his opiniion seems to fit with mine on many things.

honstly, I don't have any opinion on the weaver stance, or the ISO stance or any other stances. give me a handgun, and, even though I haven't held one in more than 10 years, I'll pop out a pretty good stance, and then maybe you can tell me what stance I use.

but here's the thing - when I needed to shoot a bad guy, I did. and I didn't wonder if I was using the weaver stance or another stance, I used the stance I was tought, and I hit what I needed to hit. and, when i took men out, they came back and I didn't have to talk to anybodies mother.


----------



## globetrotter

ksinc said:


> I believe you are referring to 1986 when I graduated high school and was nominated to the U.S. Naval Academy. Although, my Father was in Vietnam a few years before I was born in 1968 and my GrandFather was in Guam in WW2, I'm not quite sure which U.S. War you are referring. Grenada? LOL
> 
> By the time Gulf War I came along I was 23? and making a six figure salary. Two years later, I started my own company in 1993. At the moment, I'm sitting on my a$$ laughing at you while I procrastinate studying for the CPA Exam and stare at my MBA on the wall.
> 
> Thanks for asking.
> 
> We can't play dress up? I thought this was a clothing site? NOW YOU TELL ME!


yeah, but see, i don't pretend to be an accountant, now, do I?


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> honestly, I don't have any opinion on the weaver stance, or the ISO stance or any other stances. give me a handgun, and, even though I haven't held one in more than 10 years, I'll pop out a pretty good stance, and then maybe you can tell me what stance I use.
> 
> but here's the thing - when I needed to shoot a bad guy, I did. and I didn't wonder if I was using the weaver stance or another stance, I used the stance I was tought, and I hit what I needed to hit. and, when i took men out, they came back and I didn't have to talk to anybodies mother.





globetrotter said:


> as to firing a handgun in combat - no, I haven't. i didn't say that I did.


So, which is it? You've never fired a handgun in combat; Or you just shoot the bad guys, took men out, and didn't wonder about pretty stances?



globetrotter said:


> yeah, but see, i don't pretend to be an accountant, now, do I?


A wise choice. It woudn't take me a week and 200 posts to figure that one out.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

I don't really care whose is longer. Nor do I care whose was used more at what age. Frankly, I don't even care if either of you have one.

Sometimes silly and sometimes serious ... this thread has been interesting up to now. The most enjoyable thing has been reading and wisecracking without having to put the mods hat on.

Ksinc & Globe: Get back on track or take a break, please.


----------



## 16412

globetrotter said:


> I would nominate this guy for father of the year.
> 
> 1. leaves his 12 year old daughter home alone while he goes out to get drunk
> 
> 2. but, so that she is safe, he leaves her with loaded and unlocked firearms
> 
> 3. has tought her to shoot him in the arms or legs if he messes with her.
> 
> what a dad!!
> 
> actually, shooting somebody in the arm or leg is a massivly stupid idea, if you dont want to kill them. you really should only aim a weapon at somebody you are willing to kill


When I see "globetrotter" I think of heroin runner.

Your goal is to spread fear. With all the thousand of people shot by 22's, most by criminals, few people have died.

Our US and Canadian history shows that children have taken guns to schools for show, trade, sell, awe, and target competetions with out fear and almost nobody getting shot for decades. You hid your fears behind lies. If you told the truth this side of the world would be entirely different. The changes we see is resent and because the Hippies generation cannot raise there children to be respectful, probably because of their drug useage.

So far most of what you have written is bunk from and uneducated person- yourself. In all my childhood with so many children out and about with guns and I have never heard of any child that got shot or threatened. The way these children think is way different than the hogwash you push. In your fear you can't even comprehend that children can have sound reasoning around guns. I've seen children as young as 6 driving tractors in the fields and as young as 8 driving tractors down the road, legally. Just because your incompetent does not mean everybody else is.

All that military hogwash you said is ridiculous. Why? What would parents of those solders say if the choreographing didn't work? In real war you don't know what your enemies are going to do, Training helps, but it ain't everything. An honest person looking at war history will see what I said is true. Not to mention, what military person agrees with your scare tactics, anyway.

Last but not least. I've been around plenty of people who have the talk, and were even in certain situations, but they survied by swing on somebody elses coat tails, because they couldn't walk the talk. Even if you were of value- how much? Like I said about bravery other people will have to speak up to answer for you. The miss understanding you have for a number of problems in this world that some people face, what you have said gives you no voice, and you did that yourself.


----------



## 16412

Alexander Kabbaz[/QUOTE said:


> Alex your funny.
> 
> Your a nice break.


----------



## KenR

Now that people are trying to assassinate globetrotter's character I will weigh in with my own observation.

I actually met GT at Manton's booksigning last year and found him to be an intelligent, well spoken gentleman. I may not agree with every post of his but I will stick up for him.

Cheers,

Ken


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

I apologize to the rest of you who will not understand the rest of this post.

No, Globetrotter, that is *not* what he said. This is what was said:

You accused him of insulting you.

He said, "No, I didn't." He continued on and said, "*IF* I had said something like

Example1
Example2
Example3

then that would have been insulting you."

Again, Globe and Ksinc:
If the two of you have something to work out and don't want to do it here but also want a referee, then do it by PM and cc me.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

KenR said:


> Now that people are trying to assassinate globetrotter's character I will weigh in with my own observation.
> 
> I actually met GT at Manton's booksigning last year and found him to be an intelligent, well spoken gentleman. I may not agree with every post of his but I will stick up for him.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ken


 I would second that, having attended the same party before GT had the good sense to get the heck out of the NY rat race. However, as I think my previous post explains, I believe there was a simple miscommunication here which will *not* be straightened out in public.


----------



## globetrotter

KenR said:


> Now that people are trying to assassinate globetrotter's character I will weigh in with my own observation.
> 
> I actually met GT at Manton's booksigning last year and found him to be an intelligent, well spoken gentleman. I may not agree with every post of his but I will stick up for him.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ken


well, thank you Ken.


----------



## globetrotter

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I would second that, having attended the same party before GT had the good sense to get the heck out of the NY rat race. However, as I think my previous post explains, I believe there was a simple miscommunication here which will *not* be straightened out in public.


and thank you, Alex


----------



## globetrotter

WA said:


> All that military hogwash you said is ridiculous. Why? What would parents of those solders say if the choreographing didn't work? In real war you don't know what your enemies are going to do, Training helps, but it ain't everything.
> .


parents cousins or something, Wa, or did you fall on your head as a boy? how hard is it to understand? the whole idea is that it isn't a very easy exersize - the whole idea is hundreds of people keeping focused on their objectives while not shooting each other or being shot. that, actually, is a lot like war really is. and, aside from once every few years, the choreography works. but that is why the IDF pretty much never has freindly fire accidents in war - because that is the system for training.

good training prepares you for when the plan doesn't work.


----------



## globetrotter

I'm honestly very confused about the attack by KSINC - I don't understand his position, at all 

I was thinking about this today in the car, and I figure that I had about 7000 plus hours of training in small arms use and tactics - a calculation that I had never made untill now. I don't know how many hours a civillian can possibly have - 70? 250? 500? 1000? it seems perfectly natural that one would consider there to be a difference in skill set. I don't see why somebody would find that idea so threatening or insulting. 


I find it very curious, guenuinly curious, at the diffences in perception - american civillians of the gun culture put huge emphasis on things that I haven't really ever met anyone who has put emphasis on before, I just find it very interesting.


----------



## globetrotter

JLibourel said:


> As far as house clearing drills, shooting indoors, shooting upstairs, having both hostile and innocent targets, etc., I have actually done quite a bit at various shooting schools in their sundry "fun houses," etc. I have third-level certification with a pistol from Gunsite, Front Sight and Thunder Ranch. In all, I have completed one course at Gunsite, two at Front Sight and three at Thunder Ranch. Admittedly, this is more than the average gun owner is likely to do, but such training is readily available to motivated "civilians" if they want it.


JL,

curious, how do these places work? It strikes me that the IDF really trains very differently that what is normal over here - I asumed it was pretty similar.

what are the walls made of? how many people work together in these exersizes?

typically, the idea in our training was that you would get a pretty realistic affect from the wall - the heavy dust that comes off of shot walls.

we would usually start off with one man, one room, work up to 3 men, one room, 3 men 3 rooms, etc until we were maybe 600 guys working together in a (fake) village. typically, that would all be done both day and night, and you would usualy do it at least once in the rain.

but we didnt usually work with pop up targets - at least in my day. we used pop up targets in the pistol course, but that was seldom more than 3 people working together.


----------



## Hombrerana

ksinc said:


> Globe, you could listen to Hombre except ... unfortunately, this was brought up by someone calling people amatuers and you went on your realistic training soapbox.
> 
> On the subject of the Modern Technique ...
> 
> I have shot extensively with a couple of former SEALs and one SEAL from the Vietnam era - they both practice two ways: Modern Technique and Point Shooting. The modern technique is for sighted, slow fire. Point shooting because the odds are that if you need to use your pistol, your other hand will be bored are ZERO. At best it might be holding your jammed M4, at worst you might be on a rope or ladder, etc.
> 
> In general, cops don't practice enough and their training breaks down under stress. This is why they keep reverting to unsighted fire. I give you one of Col. Cooper's last insights circa 2002.
> 
> Q: Who is atrociously missing? A: COPS.
> 
> He's not talking about Rex Applegate, Jelly Bryce, and Bill Jordan - Guys like them DIDN'T MISS. These men were right all along about cops and the 'combat crouch' or 'FBI crouch' point shooting style they perfected. Bill Jordan being a cop vs. Cooper being a Marine knew that cops could and would never perfect the Modern Technique until it became instinctual. Instead he perfected the instinctual style. He was a practical man that negotiated for a lighter K-frame 357 so cops could carry it more comfortably and would carry it even off-duty instead of carrying pocket pistols off-duty. I know that some people here aren't sure whether to respect him as a gunman or not. LOL
> 
> Here's a neat quote from a gun magazine - American Handgunner - "The Weaver stance is -- don't be shocked -- obsolete. none of the top competitive shooters use it and police departments no longer train with Cooper's outmoded technique."
> 
> That's interesting because at the Lethal Force Institute (Masaad Ayoob) teaches Weaver, Chapman (modified Weaver), and the Isoceles from a "combat crouch" which is for and I quote "when you need an immediate barricade (such as behind a car engine block)". The weaver and chapman are taught under StressFire Marksmanship using the "Tueller Drill".
> 
> Both the isocoles and modern isocoles do offer a good base for steady controlled fire (like when you are behind a barricade). I feel I should point out that both Isoceles stances offer very poor, limited weapon retention when you are not. They also put a person's balance too far forward and puts them in a fixed/static position. You are actually taught in Modern Iso to turn your head and arms like a "turret" from this fixed position! They also put the weapon too far away from the body and lock the both elbows. As Mr. L mentioned - None of the combat pistol instructors teach it, and none of the special forces use it, but competitive shooters LOVE IT! It dominates competitive target shooting. You know - shooting paper! LOL
> 
> Most civilian/police handgun combat takes place within 10 feet. It's almost impossible to draw if you already haven't before someone can be on top of you. It's the height of posership to think you are going to draw, spread your legs out past shoulder width, and then extend your gun 2.5 feet from your body against a hardened street thug within 10 feet of you and he won't make you eat it. On top of it all. You are actually PUSHING the gun away from you.
> 
> IF YOU ARE A CIVILIAN - which this thread was about remember? Gentleman pistols? AND A SOMETIMES SHOOTER the iso stances will get you killed. The modern technique has the highest weapon retention ability. You have both hands on the gun and You push/pull with the right and left hand which covers the trigger frame and creates tension. Still, I think most people scared to death are going to point-and-shoot one handed. That is what Applegate thought. That is what Jordan thought.
> 
> Take it out of guns. Think about instinctual human movement. Think about ergonomics. Think about what you are doing right now - using a computer. Why was the mouse invented? Why is it the most intuitive user interface? Because research was done that the most basic instinct we learn as babies is to point one-handed, even before we learn to walk and talk. In the most stressful situation of your life, you want to keep it as simple and instinctual as possible unless you train so much your training overcomes your human instinct. How many civilians and cops do you think train THAT MUCH? Well other than a few 'gun nuts' not many.
> 
> Yes, all the target/competitive shooters now use Modern Isoceles. It's faster if no one is shooting back at you. And you get all set up and spread out before the 'buzzer' sounds. Funny how someone was just dogging those target/competitive shooters out a few pages ago as 'posers with race guns' was it? Who was that again?


When referring to the "modern technique" in my earlier post, I'm both challenging JL's assertion that cops are losing fights because they are taught aimed fire as opposed to just point and shoot, and I'm simultaneously asserting that the weaver is largely antiquated. Maybe it is best to keep these two ideas separate as best we can, for the purpose of our little discussion.

You did mention something accurate when you said that the best combat shooters in the world are shooting a modern isosceles. You are flat wrong however when you state that no spec ops forces are using it. I know you shoot with a bunch of former toadmen and I cannot vouch for what they have said or what you understood them to have said; however, at the Mid-South Academy, which comes about as close as it gets to an official school for NSW, the modern isosceles is the only thing taught, it is what John Shaw and the others started winning with and was adopted for combat use. It is also taught at Blackwater, a fair number of SEALs train there as well. As for the modern technique that you mentioned above, I'm assuming that you mentioned this in regards to aimed firing as opposed to point shooting, not necessarily weaver vs. modern isosceles. Well, maybe Shaw's is all jacked up as is the entire NSW community (with the exception of your shooting buddies), but they train aimed fire, with the same fundamentals for one hand as for two. You start at seven yards shooting 3" dots single action from full extension (no the arms aren't locked), then move to the same drill DA. After that, you progress to doing the same thing from just before the press with both hands on the gun, taking the slack out before you get to full extension, with the shot breaking as you get to full extension. Next step is at presentation with the weak hand not yet on the gun, then from the draw and you go from there. You do the same drills strong hand only (obviously without the weak hand) then move to doing transition drills where your primary is down and your still using the light to transition to your secondary etc. One of the things that all of these drills have in common is the use of a flash sight picture. You are seeing the front sight each and every time, otherwise you would probably not be putting the minimum number of consecutive rounds into the dot to move on to the next step. While I realize that 3" at 7 yards equates to more than a 10" group at 25 yards, you would be surprised at how many people cannot consistently hold that at 25 yards - shooting whatever kind of pistol you want with whatever stance! You cannot point shoot each and every time or else you will lose your reference and the only way to gain it is in accurate aimed fire - which can be fast. Practical shooting or combat shooting, it doesn't really matter, they both start with fundamentals of marksmanship, something Jeff Cooper understood. It is what the competitors win with, and while it won't win me any titles, I can usually hit an A zone from 10 yards from the concealed draw in 1.5 and my splits are consistently around .20 or better, with a stock gun and seeing a front sight on every shot and I don't train nearly as much as I would like, often no more than some cops.

As for movement being restricted with the modern isosceles, you again are plain wrong. One of the hallmarks of the modern isosceles is a relaxed but aggressive posture. This allows quick and natural movement. It is simply a boxing stance with the hips squared up instead of turned toward the weak foot (please don't tell me my boxing stance is all jacked up too), in fact it is similar to a Thai boxing stance. As for the turret movement for shooting multiples and movers, the head and shoulders don't move! They are on top of the turret. The movement takes place in the knees and hips, until you get to the point where you need to take a small step to adjust your natural point of aim. The lack of blading (associated with a traditional weaver) keeps you from sticking out into the room as much and allows body armor to perform its function. If the modern isosceles restricted movement, then the competitive shooters wouldn't use it for any stage that required movement now would they. If turning on a turret didn't work, they wouldn't use it either.

As for your hardened street thug (I guess a man of your accomplished combat skills doesn't regard the soft ones) - only an idiot would presume to do what you are suggesting. As for weapons retention, I don't care what kind of position you are shooting from, if the bad guy catches you at full extension and he is inside you, you are pretty much in some kind of trouble. That is why there is a position called - you guessed it, weapons retention! You can shoot from there while pushing off of the bad guy, you can grab him around his hardened-street-thug neck and pull him toward you (ala Kelly McCann or Jim Grover - whichever you like) or you can move laterally, check with the weak hand while buying some space to accomplish your draw to weapons retention (and yes, we are point shooting at this distance). Alternatively, you can shoot over your sights with both hands on the gun somewhere between when they meet and full extension, with increasing accuracy as you get closer to extension -this balanced with the distance of your thug. There are multiple options, so long as you are not in a static, linear range mentality. I personally like to get into the habit of moving when I'm drawing, reloading or clearing a magazine, somehow I manage not to fall while so off balance, but then again Thai boxers don't fall much either!

While we are on the subject of weapons retention, you made a point K that your weaver grip is superior for weapons retention than my modern iso grip. Funny, I basically shoot a weaver from a left hand barricade if I'm forced to crowd my cover. I don't change my grip. I would be curious to know what shooting schools you have been to that advocated covering the trigger guard with your weak hand. As for the modern iso getting you killed, I'll take my chances.

I don't disparage competitive shooting, I have legged in both pistol and rifle at the Fleet and all Navy levels and I have participated in some practical matches as well. There are some differences in combat shooting and competition shooting, some of them profound, but that is not to say that they do not feed of one another and that each cannot learn from the other. I know JL doesn't think much of toadmen or D-boys, but they seem to do pretty well in combat and I've know one former co-worker (who helped me develop a firearms program at my current place of employment) who took his team to Gunsite and after hearing all of their protestation (heartfelt and well meaning protestations to be sure) proceeded to break many of their course records with both pistol and carbine - wonder of wonders - he was shooting a modified isosceles! Now that individual also competed and taught with Jerry Barnhart (who was a fixture at their command at that time) who also taught&#8230;.? Well you can guess.

JL was correct in that the schools he mentioned are still teaching a weaver or _modified _weaver (more likely the latter, as a full weaver is not compatible with today's tactics and tactical armor); however, they are not the mainstream, at least not as far as elite units go. To be fair though, they are the schools most likely to be attended by civilians as they are well known and places like Mid-South are now so busy with military and LE contracts that they do not now offer courses to civilians. I am not saying that someone cannot become a very accomplished shooter shooting the weaver. I'm saying that all else being equal, the modern isosceles is better for a new shooter to learn to fight and compete with

For what it is worth, I never said that race guns are for posers or any such thing. I said that people that carry them to the grocery store to make themselves feel like tough guys are posers or immature or whatever you want to call them - pick a word.

Now, I am trying to do my best to be done with this thread. I know I shouldn't get too upset when I'm taken to task by a guy who breaks out his MBA, his offer to Annapolis and father's military service, when challenged on his honor; however, I must admit that you did get me a bit - congratulations if you were simply on a troll mission (I largely enjoyed it anyway). So go ahead and put the boots to me, we're on the internet and anonymity is a wonderfull thing. Then maybe we can all just get along!:icon_smile:

Maybe we can talk about Cordovan holsters next!


----------



## JLibourel

Globetrotter:
In these structures, typically the outer walls were of concrete blocks sufficient to stop handgun fire. Usually the "rooms" were arrange with movable plywood panelling so students would have a different tactical problem each time they went through the buildings. The layouts would be changed around. As you progressed through the maze, you encountered various targets--"shoot" or "no shoot." They could be tricky. The same seedy looking guy you drilled for pointing a gun at you, you could encounter holding a can of beer instead of a gun the next night. Some of the targets at these places were silly, like a woman dressed as a nun holding a shotgun! The targets ranged from being prints of photos of actual people, through naturalistic representations to simple silhouettes, designated shoot or no-shoot by having a gun or knife stencilled on them.

Customarily, single individuals would walk these courses of fire followed by and critiqued by an instructor. Some did offer "team tactics" classes.

I last attended one of those shooting schools about 8 years ago. At first I really liked them, but I eventually overdosed, I think. What you learned at one was just enough "off" to be not right at the next one. The environments were somewhat wierd and cultic. Some of the people there were people who had a serious professional need for such training--military and police personnel--but a lot of them were people in ordinary, peaceful pursuits training as if they were going to be in Delta Force. It just struck me as strange and unsettling--a mental mix of paranoia and an eagerness to kill somebody. Perhaps, I am starting to sound like you, Globe!

Hombrerana,

Please do no misquote me with lines like "I know JL doesn't think much of toadmen or D-boys." I never made such a remark. I did say, and will stand by my remark, that at least some of those I shot with did not particularly impress me with their pistol shooting skills. I realize that pistols are a very incidental part of modern warfare and there is comparatively little incentive to develop a high level of mastery with the sidearm. These men were not incompetent, but they were not particularly impressive either. With rifles or subguns, the same individuals might well have cleaned my clock--I don't know.

As a general matter, I have a high level of respect for elite military professionals. 

Is what you call "the Modern Isosceles" the same as what I have heard called the "Strong Isosceles" stance--an isosceles shot from a semi-crouch with the left foot forward (for right handers)? I know for all this dogmatizing about Weaver stances, etc., in many of the old photos of Jack Weaver, he is really shooting something more like a strong isosceles. I don't think he ever used a "proper" Weaver stance in his life. I think Jeff Cooper himself became much more dogmatic about what constituted a "correct" Weaver stance as he got older.


----------



## globetrotter

JLibourel said:


> Perhaps, I am starting to sound like you, Globetrotter!


LOL!!


----------



## JLibourel

Globetrotter,

You mentioned 7,000+ hours of training in small arms use and tactics. That equates to over two solid years of nothing but that--not including the many other things one has to learn in a military unit--entrenching, first aid and usually a variety of other specialties, to say nothing of route marches, bivouacs, physical training, drill and that sort of thing. How long were you in ZAHAL that you received so much training?


----------



## globetrotter

JLibourel said:


> Globetrotter,
> 
> You mentioned 7,000+ hours of training in small arms use and tactics. That equates to over two solid years of nothing but that--not including the many other things one has to learn in a military unit--entrenching, first aid and usually a variety of other specialties, to say nothing of route marches, bivouacs, physical training, drill and that sort of thing. How long were you in ZAHAL that you received so much training?


yeah, I was thinking about that today, for the first time in a long time. I had 20 months of training - 27 days a month, with a week off after 9 months, most days 16 hours of training, but lets call it an average of 12 (literally, we had 21 minutes a day for food, for instance, so the time table was pretty tight). in that were a variety of other things - unarmed combat 9 weeks, for instance, but it was unarmed combat and pistol training - and airborne training for 3 weeks, but I would include that becuase it included fire drills even if most of the time was spent on the jumping, a lot of navigation, forced marches were usually at night, in addition to training, not instead of. I am also including, in small arms tactics, mortar, explosives and machine guns, but I think that that is fair. then, I had, I believe, 3 manuvers of 3 months each, which were pretty much all training - dessert, mountain, beach.

I was in a leadership course as well, that was several months long, and later on I was in another course that was about 6 months long, mostly dealing with small arms - these later had less time involved in the arms training, but certainly 3 hours a day.

again - I would say that it comes down to what is, exactly, training - one of the things we did a hell of a lot of in the begining was changing magazines, something that we gave about as much importance to as accurate shooting. another things was manuvering around live fire areas - both of which seem not to have any value to anybody in this discussion. I would argue that entrenching is part of small arms training and tactics, certainly finding firing positions are.

so, again - I didn't stand at a range for 7,000 hours, but I spent that in activities that I would consider part of the training for fighting.

I know that there are differences in training between US troops and IDF, but I didn't think that this would be so different.

parden me for not ansering the question about the length of service - like the country I spent time in africa, these are things that are material to the state department.


----------



## Wayfarer

I have to tell you guys, my stance is straight up gangsta baby, and then I toss the gat at 'em when I'm empty!


----------



## Martinis at 8

Wayfarer said:


> I have to tell you guys, my stance is straight up gangsta baby, and then I toss the gat at 'em when I'm empty!


Man this is too much. I want to unsubscribe from this thread, but just can't! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc

GT,

If you have any issues regarding my balls or honor to address, you are welcome to call me at the number provided. Otherwise, I'm out with the thread.

Hombre, 

We also shoot starting at 7 yards. So, I don't think that is strange at all. I mis-spoke about the left hand. I put the pad of the left index finger on the trigger guard, and stack both thumbs wrapping the last three fingers of the left hand around the right hand. That's how I learned Weaver rather than putting all four fingers below the guard. We push/pull right/left to create an iso tension. Some custom 1911s have squared/checkered trigger guards and I see some plastic pistols have molded guards like this today too. I shoot this way all the time even on a S&W revolver. Clearly, I stand corrected on the stance. Cheers!


----------



## Hombrerana

JLibourel said:


> Hombrerana,
> 
> Please do no misquote me with lines like "I know JL doesn't think much of toadmen or D-boys." I never made such a remark. I did say, and will stand by my remark, that at least some of those I shot with did not particularly impress me with their pistol shooting skills. I realize that pistols are a very incidental part of modern warfare and there is comparatively little incentive to develop a high level of mastery with the sidearm. These men were not incompetent, but they were not particularly impressive either. With rifles or subguns, the same individuals might well have cleaned my clock--I don't know.
> 
> As a general matter, I have a high level of respect for elite military professionals.
> 
> Is what you call "the Modern Isosceles" the same as what I have heard called the "Strong Isosceles" stance--an isosceles shot from a semi-crouch with the left foot forward (for right handers)? I know for all this dogmatizing about Weaver stances, etc., in many of the old photos of Jack Weaver, he is really shooting something more like a strong isosceles. I don't think he ever used a "proper" Weaver stance in his life. I think Jeff Cooper himself became much more dogmatic about what constituted a "correct" Weaver stance as he got older.


JL,

I humbly apologize for first misunderstanding and then mischaracterizing your position.

As for the "Strong Isosceles," I've never heard the term but yea, I think we are talking about the same thing. There are slight variations (as you have undoubtedly seen) but basically it is a fighting stance with both arms equally but not fully exteneded behind the gun, a 40/60 grip and a more or less relaxed stance with the legs slightly bent and weight just slightly forward. As for the Colonel, he contributed greatly to the world of armed combat. Unfortunately, that dogma that you refer to, I know, put a lot of people off and perhaps closed thier minds to a lot of useful information. Marksmanship skills are severely lacking today and it seems that we have come full circle back to what he said about using that front sight.


----------



## globetrotter

ksinc said:


> GT if you have any issues regarding my balls or honor to address, you are welcome to call me at the number provided.
> 
> Otherwise, I'm out of this thread.
> 
> Hombre, We also shoot starting at 7 yards. So, I don't think that is weird at all. However, clearly I stand corrected on the stance. Thanks! Cheers!


no issue of honor, and I would rather avoid your balls, if it is all the same to you.

pm'd. settled, as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Hombrerana

ksinc said:


> GT if you have any issues regarding my balls or honor to address, you are welcome to call me at the number provided.
> 
> Otherwise, I'm out of this thread.
> 
> Hombre, We also shoot starting at 7 yards. So, I don't think that is weird at all. However, clearly I stand corrected on the stance. Thanks! Cheers!


Ksinc,

Good to talk to you. Sorry if the posts got a bit carried away, it was all meant to be fun but I know I can get a tad Anne Coutleresque if I'm not carefull. I'm sure your balls are fine and your honor, as far as I'm concerned is intact.


----------



## Hombrerana

Wayfarer said:


> I have to tell you guys, my stance is straight up gangsta baby, and then I toss the gat at 'em when I'm empty!


Wayfarer - you so Gangsta!

Hey Martinis, you've said this before!


----------



## whomewhat

First, I own a home in Coeur d' Alene, Idaho as well as one in Santa Clara, CA, so at least part of the year I live in an area where almost every male hunts. Because of health considerations, I found myself unable to continue an activity I have enjoyed in the past, hunting, and so I sold my hunting rifles. Likewise, I had a Smith & Wesson 44 magnum that I used as a required sidearm when hunting wild boar in CA (CA law requires that you carry a sidearm when hunting wild boar) and for home protection. I fired it while on the 800-acre ranch in Hollister, CA where I hunted wild boar and my severely arthritic hand (38 years old at the time) felt like it had shattered. It took doctor prescribed steroids and six months to recover from the injury so, likewise, I sold that firearm.

Everyone is aware of the Joseph Duncan story that occurred here in CDA. He went into the home, got them to tie each other up at the threat of killing one another if they did not cooperate, then he killed them anyway, after which he kidnapped the two little children. You know the rest.

As a youth growing up in the SF Bay Area, I remember the incident that occurred in the City where this guy entered the house through a window where the wife was sleeping. He held a knife to her throat and then went into the living room where the husband was reading a book. He threatened to slit her throat if he did not begin to tie himself up. Partially tied up, he then ordered the wife to complete the deed. He then beat the man to death with a hammer. He took the wife into the bedroom, tied her to the bed, and broke every bone in her body that he could. Somehow, she actually survived this horrific nightmare.

These stories in mind, my family and I practice emergency preparedness in our home once every 3 months. We have a "safe area" in our homes that is reinforced to provide security in the event there is an intruder and all the family members know to go there, if possible. We have a safe in this area where I keep my replacement revolver, a Colt Python .357, and three quick loaders. Only I can gain entry into this safe. In the event of the above-mentioned horror, my family knows that I would not give up the one advantage I have, my firearm. I would make it clear to the intruder, to the person threatening my family, that his only way out is to drop his weapon and let my family go, otherwise, while he may harm one of them, I will definitely kill him. I will not risk the security of my entire family to possibly save one, although I will do whatever I can to try and save the one. 

I also have two boys in the military; they also own weapons of their own. Those weapons are stored outside our CDA house, in a gun safe, in a locked and secure storage facility/loft we have on our property. Both the house and the outside facility are alarmed and we have video surveillance. This is true for both my homes.

My two oldest boys also have black belts in Shotokan Karate. They spent 7 long years earning their certification and can protect themselves with their hands, too. That was another decision we made to safeguard them. 

My Santa Clara home is also reinforced, per recommendations of the City of Santa Clara, against earthquakes. We have a wood-burning stove and a 1-year supply of wood for the stove in our Idaho home. We also have 72-hour emergency kits for each member of the family that include food, clothing,and other needed items in the event of a catastrophy. Finally, we have a 1-year supply of food for our family, at each home.

It is my right, and duty, to protect my family and this is the method I have chosen. There are truly evil people out in the world who will harm innocents when give the chance. While it is impossible to protect yourself against all possible dangers, part of being the head of my household, IMHO, is to try and anticipate those dangers, as best I can, and then take measures to protect against them. I have done that to the best of my ability, taking into consideration my health, and this is what I have come up with. 

It is my belief that criminals will always find a way to get what they want, regardless of any laws we pass. I am 48 years old, have never done any illegal drugs in my life, and have absolutely no idea where I would go to get them if I wanted to. Clearly, even though they are illegal, those who want to acquire them have no difficulty doing so. The same would be true with firearms, if banned.

Obviously, given the above, I believe absolutely in the Second Amendment. I can't say I am opposed to some limits on automatic weapons that do not seem to have any use other than for criminal activity, but I would have to be convinced of such before I would want to start banning them. Given my health concerns and my absolute duty to protect my family, my Colt is my only means to do so. I go to the range, regularly, to practice with it and I would not hesitate to use it. I will never give it up. 

Should every gentleman have a pistol? This is the question (at least I took it as a question) asked at the beginning of this thread. My answer: Every gentleman should have the right to have a pistol, if he chooses, so long as he does not have a criminal record or has been diagnosed with a mental condition that could potentially make him a threat to others. I think a better question is "Should every gentleman reasonably protect his family given their unique circumstances?" YES!


----------



## JLibourel

"California law requires that you carry a sidearm when hunting wild boar"!!!??? That's a new one on me. I have hunted wild boar many times without a sidearm and was unaware of that. The guides at the Tejon Ranch have never mentioned that legal requirement to me. I guess they winked at my lawbreaking. Frankly, I consider anyone who goes hunting wild boar with a suitably powerful rifle and then feels has to "back up" his rifle with a powerful handgun to something of a jackass. As Jeff Cooper said many years ago, using a .44 Magnum to back up a .300 magnum rifle is about like using a PT boat to back up a battleship!

I really don't regard wild swine, despite the hype, as particularly dangerous animals.


----------



## whomewhat

JLibourel said:


> "California law requires that you carry a sidearm when hunting wild boar"!!!??? That's a new one on me. I have hunted wild boar many times without a sidearm and was unaware of that. The guides at the Tejon Ranch have never mentioned that legal requirement to me. I guess they winked at my lawbreaking. Frankly, I consider anyone who goes hunting wild boar with a suitably powerful rifle and then feels has to "back up" his rifle with a powerful handgun to something of a jackass. As Jeff Cooper said many years ago, using a .44 Magnum to back up a .300 magnum rifle is about like using a PT boat to back up a battleship!
> 
> I really don't regard wild swine, despite the hype, as particularly dangerous animals.


Actually, what Jeff Cooper said is this, relative to big game hunting:

"October 1969--I have never felt that the idea of a 'back-up' pistol for a big-game hunter was a sound one. If you can't do the job with a .300 Winchester, I don't see how you can do it with any sort of pistol. This is rather like using a speed boat to back up a battleship."

He also said this regarding the hunting of bear:

"April 1973--"Much as I favor the 1911, I wear a .44 Magnum in bear country."

I have not hunted wild pigs since the late 90's so I do not claim to be an expert on current law. I have also never hunted at the Tejon Ranch, which is in So Cal, since I live in Nor Cal. I have only hunted feral pigs on private property owned by a friend in Hollister and at Fort Hunter Ligget.

"I consider anyone who goes hunting wild boar with a suitably powerful rifle and then feels has to "back up" his rifle with a powerful handgun to something of a jackass."

Having subscribed to Guns and Ammo for many years, I am extremely familiar with Col. Coopers contributions and colorful writing. It is certainly not uncommon for his positions to be in conflict with the hunting laws of the various states.

As I said, it was a requirement that you carried a sidearm, not my own personal feeling that I needed to "back up" my rifle. That said, and to use _your_ metaphor, hunting feral pigs with a .300 magnum is like sinking a yacht with a battleship. I have NEVER known ANYONE to use anything above a 7MM magnum to hunt pigs, and even that is the high end. To quote Col. Cooper: "The big .30 seems to be all the rage at the gun counters, for no reason that I can make out. In my youth I achieved total success with the classic .30-06 cartridge. I could not have done better with anything to appear on the market since."

Pigs do not see very well, eat the roots of vegetation, and tend to be found in very thick brush. Thus, it is quite common to happen upon one at close range. Shooting any animal, even big game, at very close range with a high-powered rifle would have little or no "take down" power. Unless you hit a vital organ, it would simply go right through it. That is not true with a large caliber handgun, hence, the reason for the requirement IMHO, at least back then.

I am also aware of "thrill hunting" that used to take place, and I imagine still does, where the pigs are hunted with pit bulls and nothing more than a knife. Personally, I think that is crazy, but people still do it.

"I really don't regard wild swine, despite the hype, as particularly dangerous animals."

First, it is not "hype" to suggest wild boar are dangerous. I have personal experience with them and have witnessed the difficulty some have had in bringing them down. That you do not regard them as dangerous only suggests to me that you have never really hunted them.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

whomewhat said:


> Only I can gain entry into this safe.



This set me to wondering about our own decisions here which slightly diverge from yours:

Why did you decide that Mrs. WhoMeWhat and your grown children are not to know the combination? What would happen if you are the one restrained and only she is able to make it to the saferoom?


----------



## Wayfarer

Hombrerana said:


> Wayfarer - you so Gangsta!
> 
> Hey Martinis, you've said this before!


Just keeping it real. Yo. :aportnoy:


----------



## Hombrerana

Straight up dog

As an aside, an SPD buddy of mine was interviewing Homey who was a whitness to a shooting. When asked to describe in his own words, Homey assumed a textbook gansta-lean firing position and said "he had he gat like this, he go GOOCHA-GOOCHA"

I want a pistol that makes a _goocha_ sound.


----------



## whomewhat

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> This set me to wondering about our own decisions here which slightly diverge from yours:
> 
> Why did you decide that Mrs. WhoMeWhat and your grown children are not to know the combination? What would happen if you are the one restrained and only she is able to make it to the saferoom?
> 
> First, I appreciate a real question, not simply an attack. My wife will not have anything to do with guns, does not want to learn, and so it would make no sense for her to have access, although I do not have a problem with that. She is comfortable with the idea of calling the police for help and letting them do their job. In Santa Clara, that means a 30-second response time, I kid you not. CDA, on the other hand, I just do not know. You clearly differentiated between the younger kids and the grown kids, and I am glad you understand the distinction. The older boys do not live at home, regularly. One of them is stationed out of Camp Pendleton when he is not deployed or otherwise assigned. My oldest son is somewhere else. My third older son is attending college in another state. In truth, my older boys, when at home, have other means to defend themselves that I do not. I would not be opposed to them having the combination to the safe, if they wanted it, but they do not nor do they feel the need to have it. It is that simple.


----------



## JLibourel

whomewhat said:


> Actually, what Jeff Cooper said is this, relative to big game hunting:
> 
> "October 1969--I have never felt that the idea of a 'back-up' pistol for a big-game hunter was a sound one. If you can't do the job with a .300 Winchester, I don't see how you can do it with any sort of pistol. This is rather like using a speed boat to back up a battleship."
> 
> He also said this regarding the hunting of bear:
> 
> "April 1973--"Much as I favor the 1911, I wear a .44 Magnum in bear country."
> 
> I have not hunted wild pigs since the late 90's so I do not claim to be an expert on current law. I have also never hunted at the Tejon Ranch, which is in So Cal, since I live in Nor Cal. I have only hunted feral pigs on private property owned by a friend in Hollister and at Fort Hunter Ligget.
> 
> "I consider anyone who goes hunting wild boar with a suitably powerful rifle and then feels has to "back up" his rifle with a powerful handgun to something of a jackass."
> 
> Having subscribed to Guns and Ammo for many years, I am extremely familiar with Col. Coopers contributions and colorful writing. It is certainly not uncommon for his positions to be in conflict with the hunting laws of the various states.
> 
> As I said, it was a requirement that you carried a sidearm, not my own personal feeling that I needed to "back up" my rifle. That said, and to use _your_ metaphor, hunting feral pigs with a .300 magnum is like sinking a yacht with a battleship. I have NEVER known ANYONE to use anything above a 7MM magnum to hunt pigs, and even that is the high end. To quote Col. Cooper: "The big .30 seems to be all the rage at the gun counters, for no reason that I can make out. In my youth I achieved total success with the classic .30-06 cartridge. I could not have done better with anything to appear on the market since."
> 
> Pigs do not see very well, eat the roots of vegetation, and tend to be found in very thick brush. Thus, it is quite common to happen upon one at close range. Shooting any animal, even big game, at very close range with a high-powered rifle would have little or no "take down" power. Unless you hit a vital organ, it would simply go right through it. That is not true with a large caliber handgun, hence, the reason for the requirement IMHO, at least back then.
> 
> I am also aware of "thrill hunting" that used to take place, and I imagine still does, where the pigs are hunted with pit bulls and nothing more than a knife. Personally, I think that is crazy, but people still do it.
> 
> "I really don't regard wild swine, despite the hype, as particularly dangerous animals."
> 
> First, it is not "hype" to suggest wild boar are dangerous. I have personal experience with them and have witnessed the difficulty some have had in bringing them down. That you do not regard them as dangerous only suggests to me that you have never really hunted them.


I think I have shot about 8 or 9 wild boar, all but one in California. I have been present at the shooting of many others. I once had to follow up a very large wounded boar in thick brush. The animal only wanted to get away. Hogs will try to fight dogs, but all I've ever seen just wanted to get away from humans.

Actually, I think a greater problem than over penetration and under-expansion when shooting a hog at close range would be a tendency of the bullet, going at high velocity, to blow up on the thick gristle plate of a large hog.

People take all kinds of things hunting hogs. I've killed a couple with .30-06s, one with a .45-70, another with a 7mm WSM and several with shotgun slugs. I have used revolvers on hogs and found them very ineffective. I will never do it again. I once saw a smallish hog shot with a .375 H&H Magnum. It made a bloody mess of the pig--so much for the claims of Elmer Keith and his acolytes that a .375 will actually destroy less meat than a .270!

One writer buddy of mine took a Remington .300 Ultra Mag to hunt hogs on the Tejon. I agree that that seems like a case of overkill. Even so, if I remember the story, it took him two shots to anchor one, rather amazingly.


----------



## whomewhat

JLibourel said:


> One writer buddy of mine took a Remington .300 Ultra Mag to hunt hogs on the Tejon. I agree that that seems like a case of overkill. Even so, if I remember the story, it took him two shots to anchor one, rather amazingly.


I think you may have reinforced my point, without intending to do so. I agree, completely, that it can be difficult to take a pig down, especially when the goal it to keep as much of the meat as possible.

I grew up with the owner of Neto's Sausage Company in Santa Clara, and he butchered my last hog for me and used all of the meat to make linguica, and he smoked the ribs. I have never had better linguica in my life and I love Neto's just the way it is, normally.

I watched a friend shoot a pig with a 7MM at a full run. Unfortunately, he did not hit it clean and it was injured. It had no escape route and so it simply charged him. He pulled out his .357 and unloaded five shots in a nice tight pattern in the chest. It did not drop until the 5th shot and he only had 1 shot left. I have never had that happen to me hunting deer, antelope, or even Elk.

Here in Idaho, there was a young teenager out hunting who was stalked by a cougar while walking a trail with his rifle slung over his shoulder. He somehow became aware of the cougar, pulled his sidearm, turned, and then shot and killed the cougar. I don't remember the local Press, a very Pro-hunter local Press, calling him a "jackass." [I am searching for the article as I sit here.]

Everyone uses different weapons, tactics, etc., when hunting, which is why it is important to find a hunting partner that you get along with. I can acknowledge and agree that what works for one may not be appropriate for another. I am just puzzled by the "jackass" remark relating to the carrying of a hand gun. I guess we will have to disagree on that point.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

Well, guys, I guess we shot the pig on this one. Hated to see it die at 799 posts so I figured I'd give it an epitaph.


----------



## katon

Not that it especially matters, but my personal opinion is that while every gentleman should have a pistol, no gentleman should ever need to use one. 

A lot of this boils down to courtesy. Gentlemen understand the importance of courtesy; courtesy is and always has been a foil to violence. Although a gentleman is justified in carrying a pistol, being forced to use it suggests a failure in his manners, and a loss of control over the situation. The $100 in a wallet stolen is not so great a loss if one can swallow one's pride, and most larger items are covered by insurance nowadays. If it reaches the point that one's life is in danger, one must do what must be done. 

As to aesthetics, the trick would be to find firearms that fit the appropriate technical specifications first, then narrow them down by design. One needn't get a plastic gun, but one ought not sacrifice true gains in utility for style. Follow the basic tenants used for clothes (timelessness, understatement, durability, utility) and one should have no problems in selection.


----------



## Martinis at 8

Very true *katon*. An armed society is a polite society.


----------



## Hombrerana

Speaking softly is great, but every now and agian someone has to get thumped with the big stick, sad but true. The key is in not really wanting to use the big stick but being ready, willing and able to use it if the time comes. And when it does - speed, surprise and violence of action win the day.


----------



## 18677

*.*



Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Well, guys, I guess we shot the pig on this one. Hated to see it die at 799 posts so I figured I'd give it an epitaph.


It hasn't given up the ghost just yet. I have enjoyed the posts. It has been a good exchange for the most part.


----------



## whomewhat

MK said:


> It hasn't given up the ghost just yet. I have enjoyed the posts. It has been a good exchange for the most part.
> 
> "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


I agree completely. People in this forum can disagree, maybe get a little passionate for a moment, but in the end gentlemanly behavior prevails.

As to your Edmund Burke quote, one of my favorites, that is actually a summary of what he said, not his actual words. His actual words are worthy of repeating.

Edmund Burke, in "Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents," stated as follows:

"Whilst men are linked together, they easily and speedily communicate the alarm of any evil design. They are enabled to fathom it with common counsel, and to oppose it with united strength. Whereas, when they lie dispersed, without concert, order, or discipline, communication is uncertain, counsel difficult, and resistance impracticable. Where men are not acquainted with each other's principles, nor experienced in each other's talents, nor at all practised in their mutual habitudes and dispositions by joint efforts in business; no personal confidence, no friendship, no common interest, subsisting among them; it is evidently impossible that they can act a public part with uniformity, perseverance, or efficacy. In a connection, the most inconsiderable man, by adding to the weight of the whole, has his value, and his use; out of it, the greatest talents are wholly unserviceable to the public. No man, who is not inflamed by vain-glory into enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported, desultory, unsystematic endeavours, are of power to defeat the subtle designs and united cabals of ambitious citizens. *When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.*"


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

Nice quote, WhoMeWhat.

OK, epitaph withdrawn. The beast rises; knights of the Round come one and all to further filet the dragon.

_*ONWARD, SOLDIERS OF ALL DENOMINATIONS!

*_


----------



## eagle2250

Gentlemen...it all boils down to status awareness and target vulnerabilities. People who are paying attention or who take reasonable steps to make their homes or other property less vulnerable, are not the ones getting attacked or robbed of their possessions. It is the ones that go through life, blithely unaware that become victims and...the presence of a firearm, or lack thereof, will not change that reality. Primarily due to my previous professions, I have carried and (unfortunately had to use) firearms thru much of my life. I continue to own a number of handguns, as well as long guns but, almost never carry these days...it's not my job any more! Carrying a handgun will not keep you from becoming the victim of a physical attack and can lead to tragic results in many cases. Being aware of what is going on around you and common sense are the best protection. They will influence the bad guy to look for an easier target!

Offered as food for thought!


----------



## Laxplayer

*Apparently women need a pistol too.*

Armed Miss America 1944 stops intruder.


----------



## JLibourel

Laxplayer said:


> Armed Miss America 1944 stops intruder.


Yeah, I saw that in the paper this morning. It may be notable that the old girl very effectively utilized a not-too-easy to shoot handgun (.38 snub) to do the job. I don't know anything about her history, but I am reasonably certain that she never had multiple courses with John Shaw at Mid-South, served with SEAL Team 6 or survived hundreds of firefights with ZAHAL--as some participants in this forum have argued is necessary to be able effectively deploy a defensive handgun. Stories like this are not all that uncommon. There are usually a bunch of them in The American Rifleman's "Armed Citizen" column.

And could an 82-year-old woman have stopped the thieves wielding a baseball bat or some similar weapon, as some have suggested as alternatives to the handgun?


----------



## globetrotter

JL,

I see the tongue pushing through the side of your mouth, but i will clarify my position - the idea is the chose the tool you need, for the situation. very frankly, the vast vast majority of these cases where somebody uses a gun to stop an intruder, a stick or some gas would have done the exact same job. my brother, who didnt serve a day in teh army and has never taken a single martial arts or boxing class or anything, once hit a mugger with a large cup of 711 coffee and then proceeded to push him over and stomp on his hands. this same guy as scared away 3 groups of burglars by yelling and stomping on the stairs in his house. 

in some cases that isn't enough 

my argument today is the same that it was 2 years ago - if a stick isn't going to be enough, I am not sure that very basic knowlege is going to be enough. 

so, as an extention - for a 100 pound girl, or a 78 year old grandma, using a stick isn't a solution, the handgun is a great tool. I would hope that they know enough how to use it. 

anyway, gentlemen - I am in sunny cartegena, enjoying the view of the 16th century fort and castle, with my family. I have a platter the size of a small car full of fresh tropical fruits, a bottle of nice rum, and a box of cuban cigars that may or not be authentic, but are an excellent value for what I paid for them. I am going to enjoy my time here, and perhaps I will check over the next 2 weeks, and perhaps not. 

enjoy the discusion, and safe shooting.


----------



## whomewhat

eagle2250 said:


> Gentlemen...it all boils down to status awareness and target vulnerabilities. People who are paying attention or who take reasonable steps to make their homes or other property less vulnerable, are not the ones getting attacked or robbed of their possessions. It is the ones that go through life, blithely unaware that become victims and...the presence of a firearm, or lack thereof, will not change that reality. Being aware of what is going on around you and common sense are the best protection. They will influence the bad guy to look for an easier target!


Did you ever hit the bulls eye, pun intended. As a father of five, I have spent my entire adult life worrying about and protecting my children. I know that there is no way to be 100% safe, but I try the best I can.

I was in the parking lot of our local supermarket about 1 week ago with my 9 year old daughter getting ready to go in. To OUR astonishment (yes, my daughter commented before I could) we observed this couple get out of their car, tell their less than 5 year old daughter to stay inside the car without opening it for anyone, and then they both went into the store. I know if I said something that a fight would likely ensue and I did not want to call the police, although I guess I probably should have. Instead, my daughter and I waited in our car for this couple to complete their shopping, keeping on eye on THEIR child. This is the epitomy of "go[ing] through life, blithely unaware," as stated by eagle2250.

Nothing causes me more pain than to turn on the television and watch parents completely distraught because one of their children has disappeared or been kidnapped, only to turn up dead. That possibility causes me to take what others might think are extraordinary measures to protect my children. So be it. But I cannot help but wonder how many children are victims because of parents who "go through life, blithely unaware," leaving their children unattended in a car? I mean, how easy would it have been if a criminal, not my daugther and I, had witnessed the above and then had decided to nab this little girl?

"People who are *paying attention* or who *take reasonable steps* to make their homes or other property less vulnerable, are not the ones getting attacked or robbed of their possessions." This is almost always true. It is the true aberration, when even someone taking reasonable precautions, nonetheless is victimized.

"Chance favors the prepared mind." -- *Louis Pasteur*

Preparation does not guarantee a positive outcome, but it certainly greatly improves the chances for a positive outcome.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

globetrotter said:


> anyway, gentlemen - I am in sunny cartegena, enjoying the view of the 16th century fort and castle, with my family. I have a platter the size of a small car full of fresh tropical fruits, a bottle of nice rum, and a box of cuban cigars that may or not be authentic, but are an excellent value for what I paid for them. I am going to enjoy my time here, and perhaps I will check over the next 2 weeks, and perhaps not.


 That, sir, gives new meaning to the word *Cruel*!


----------



## Wayfarer

AK:

You have yet to share with us what your favorite stance is. As I have self-disclosed, mine is gangsta. I am willing to wager you eschew the weaver stance and opt for the (bespoke) tailor. Am I correct?


----------



## Hombrerana

JLibourel said:


> Yeah, I saw that in the paper this morning. It may be notable that the old girl very effectively utilized a not-too-easy to shoot handgun (.38 snub) to do the job. I don't know anything about her history, but I am reasonably certain that she never had multiple courses with John Shaw at Mid-South, served with SEAL Team 6 or survived hundreds of firefights with ZAHAL--as some participants in this forum have argued is necessary to be able effectively deploy a defensive handgun. Stories like this are not all that uncommon. There are usually a bunch of them in The American Rifleman's "Armed Citizen" column.
> 
> And could an 82-year-old woman have stopped the thieves wielding a baseball bat or some similar weapon, as some have suggested as alternatives to the handgun?


JL,

Come on big boy, just as you don't appreciate being misquoted, neither do I. I think the story was great and my hat is off to the lady who successfully defended herself.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

Wayfarer said:


> AK:
> 
> You have yet to share with us what your favorite stance is. As I have self-disclosed, mine is gangsta. I am willing to wager you eschew the weaver stance and opt for the (bespoke) tailor. Am I correct?


Humorously trying to drag me down into the fray, eh?

Briefly, it's been very interesting to read the many knowledgable members' opinions on the various stances. Universally, though, they have brought the tactics of war into a debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment under the guise of self-defense. Without so saying, they are universally assuming a vest ... and the opposition of soldiers.

All seem to ignore that none of this applies to the normal situation of self-defense in which most heads-of-families or family members might find themselves which is a break-in to their homes while they are asleep, vestless.

In that situation, the smartest stance is one of presenting the smallest and least visible target to the criminal. That stance, for someone on their own familiar turf, is prone and in the dark with a loaded 12 gauge.

In the rare situation where one is confronted by a criminal with drawn weapon, and one has made the judgement that in all probability the criminal is going to use the weapon notwithstanding compliance with demands, one's sole chance is dive, draw, and roll. With luck, the shooter will miss and I won't, for I've practiced the move as much as any civilian might and, probability again, he has not done much more with his weapon than wear is in his belt. Without luck, I'm dead ... which is less of a certainty than if I just stood there and let him shoot me.

War is something one goes to with the expectation of being shot at. Daily living is not. Contingency plan, yes. Tactical studies for daily living? I think not.

Sorry to be so simplistic.


----------



## globetrotter

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Humorously trying to drag me down into the fray, eh?
> 
> Briefly, it's been very interesting to read the many knowledgable members' opinions on the various stances. Universally, though, they have brought the tactics of war into a debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment under the guise of self-defense. Without so saying, they are universally assuming a vest ... and the opposition of soldiers.
> 
> All seem to ignore that none of this applies to the normal situation of self-defense in which most heads-of-families or family members might find themselves which is a break-in to their homes while they are asleep, vestless.
> 
> In that situation, the smartest stance is one of presenting the smallest and least visible target to the criminal. That stance, for someone on their own familiar turf, is prone and in the dark with a loaded 12 gauge.
> 
> In the rare situation where one is confronted by a criminal with drawn weapon, and one has made the judgement that in all probability the criminal is going to use the weapon notwithstanding compliance with demands, one's sole chance is dive, draw, and roll. With luck, the shooter will miss and I won't, for I've practiced the move as much as any civilian might and, probability again, he has not done much more with his weapon than wear is in his belt. Without luck, I'm dead ... which is less of a certainty than if I just stood there and let him shoot me.
> 
> War is something one goes to with the expectation of being shot at. Daily living is not. Contingency plan, yes. Tactical studies for daily living? I think not.
> 
> Sorry to be so simplistic.


excellent post, sir.

as I puff on my cigars this week - I will think of you.


----------



## JLibourel

Lotta wisdom and sound good sense there, Alex!


----------



## Wayfarer

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Humorously trying to drag me down into the fray, eh?


And it worked!



Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Sorry to be so simplistic.


I find that usually to be the best approach to real life (and business) situations.


----------



## Acct2000

I try to be a gentleman, but given my Gilliganish level of talent with anything even remotely mechanical (those who doubt me can watch me try to start my lawnmower tonight.), the world is a safer place because I don't own a handgun.

I used to be a gun control believer, but I have seen some evidence that citizens being armed can help in at least some situations. I want to be a gun control believer, but I now have serious doubts.


----------



## Kav

PSHAWWW !!! The Weaver stance reminds me of a guy caught relieving himself on a hiking trail by blue haired Audoban Society birdwatchers. I had to qualify with the 1911 in the one handed Camp Perry stance. The Chief Gunner's Mate stood there telling me to stand up straight like my 3rd grade teacher. His take on shootouts, and he had seen several was this: Stand straight like a man. It intimidates your opponent and actually presents a smaller target if there is other movement around you. Have the sun at your back. Shoot slow as fast as you can and kill him.


----------



## JLibourel

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I try to be a gentleman, but given my Gilliganish level of talent with anything even remotely mechanical (those who doubt me can watch me try to start my lawnmower tonight.), the world is a safer place because I don't own a handgun.


You would be surprised how many eminent gunwriters are really very unmechanical. Some are appreciably worse than I am, and that's saying something!


----------



## Acct2000

Thank you for the vote of confidence.

I appreciate all the arguments for owning a gun. 

But I need all five of my fingers for typing and piano-playing, and I value my toes. I probably will be hesitant. I have fired a gun, twice, and once a shotgun bruised my shoulder really badly. Firing a handgun once was just about as bad.

Some of us are just not meant to be gun people. I have no serious problems with those who own them.


----------



## 16412

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Thank you for the vote of confidence.
> 
> I appreciate all the arguments for owning a gun.
> 
> But I need all five of my fingers for typing and piano-playing, and I value my toes. I probably will be hesitant. I have fired a gun, twice, and once a shotgun bruised my shoulder really badly. Firing a handgun once was just about as bad.
> 
> Some of us are just not meant to be gun people. I have no serious problems with those who own them.


A 22 is so much better to start out with. Go to some stores and put them in your hands to see what they are like. Some are easy to point and handle, and grips are changeable.

When you start with a big gun it makes a lot of noise and kick sometimes hard which are henderances to learning.


----------



## globetrotter

https://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?p=501449#post501449

interesting discussion over in SF - Kai, who I would guess is as well trained as any civillian can be, and usually carries a weapon that is very well thought out, meets a burglar in his home.


----------



## ksinc

globetrotter said:


> https://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?p=501449#post501449
> 
> interesting discussion over in SF - Kai, who I would guess is as well trained as any civillian can be, and usually carries a weapon that is very well thought out, meets a burglar in his home.


PM sent.


----------



## omairp

Guns make great fashion accessories for everyone, not just trads. If you're into the whole whole rich Italian look with Brioni suits and Lattanzi shoes, you can opt for a Saddam style solid gold AK-47 which looks quite dashing (be sure to get an alligator skin shoulder strap.) If you're into the urban look, a Tech9 goes nicely with some Converse shoes or Nike Air Force 1's.:aportnoy:


----------



## 16412

omairp said:


> Guns make great fashion accessories for everyone, not just trads. If you're into the whole whole rich Italian look with Brioni suits and Lattanzi shoes, you can opt for a Saddam style solid gold AK-47 which looks quite dashing (be sure to get an alligator skin shoulder strap.) If you're into the urban look, a Tech9 goes nicely with some Converse shoes or Nike Air Force 1's.:aportnoy:


Solid gold? You can do better than that. Just put a couple hundred 5 carat diamond studs on it.

You forgot the baseball hat to go with the Tech9.


----------



## The Gabba Goul

omairp said:


> If you're into the urban look, a Tech9 goes nicely with some Converse shoes or Nike Air Force 1's.:aportnoy:


Nah, I prefer the flashy-but-not-over-the-top look of a chrome plated D Eagle with my Air Jordans...it adds a little flair to the urban ensemble...all the while giving a slight no nonsense "bulge" which can be seen in the waistband region, and sends a clear message to any ner-do-wells that you are a gentleman who isnt to be phuctwit...


----------



## Acct2000

What color are the Air Jordans? I would think that grey might be a bit too matchy.


----------



## Wayfarer

omairp said:


> Guns make great fashion accessories for everyone, not just trads. If you're into the whole whole rich Italian look with Brioni suits and Lattanzi shoes, you can opt for a Saddam style solid gold AK-47 which looks quite dashing (be sure to get an alligator skin shoulder strap.) If you're into the urban look, a Tech9 goes nicely with some Converse shoes or Nike Air Force 1's.:aportnoy:


Just out of interest, what would make a brand new member, from Canada, revive this thread?


----------



## Karl89

Wayfarer,

Which thread is more of a beating - this or Pathmark? 

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer

Karl89 said:


> Wayfarer,
> 
> Which thread is more of a beating - this or Pathmark?
> 
> Karl


Well at least this one went away for awhile.


----------



## omairp

Wayfarer said:


> Just out of interest, what would make a brand new member, from Canada, revive this thread?


I'm from Alberta, Alberta is gun country. There was a national gun registry that had a bit of a cost over-run a year ago. The budgeted cost was $10 million Canadian, costs soared to over $1 billion, and the registry was still non-functional, the new conservative government scrapped it.

Guns, cowboys, conservatives, and oil. Alberta is Canada's Texas. :icon_smile:

That and Gabba Goul suggested I have a look at it.


----------



## Wayfarer

omairp said:


> I'm from Alberta, Alberta is gun country. There was a national gun registry that had a bit of a cost over-run a year ago. The budgeted cost was $10 million Canadian, costs soared to over $1 billion, and the registry was still non-functional, the new conservative government scrapped it.


Yes, but the scrapping of the registry does not change the carry laws. I was born and raised in Ontario. I had to even submit to the local OPP office my usual route to the practice range and have a damn good excuse if I was ever caught with a handgun, in a range box, locked in my trunk, not headed to/from the range. Long guns are another story of course, the stress was always on hand guns.



omairp said:


> That and Gabba Goul suggested I have a look at it.


Caught that after I posted my question to you.


----------



## Kav

Saddam was often shown shooting his Mannlicher-Shoenauer one handed into the air. When captured, I believe he was carying an older Berreta 9 MM. Places Webly-Scott MK IV 6" Navy on table with .455 manstoppers handloaded after an early post exchange with Jan . This is my prefered weapon gentlemen, do join me for dinner.


----------



## The Gabba Goul

forsbergacct2000 said:


> What color are the Air Jordans? I would think that grey might be a bit too matchy.


well...no...of course, they have to be black...I think it ties in well with the hand grips...LoL

...as an aside...what is the technical name for the "hand grips" of a pistol...not a trivia question...I'd just like to know...


----------



## jpeirpont

The Gabba Goul said:


> Nah, I prefer the flashy-but-not-over-the-top look of a chrome plated D Eagle with my Air Jordans...it adds a little flair to the urban ensemble...all the while giving a slight no nonsense "bulge" which can be seen in the waistband region, and sends a clear message to any ner-do-wells that you are a gentleman who isnt to be phuctwit...


LOL... Nice


----------



## Wayfarer

The Gabba Goul said:


> ...as an aside...what is the technical name for the "hand grips" of a pistol...not a trivia question...I'd just like to know...


Jan could probably confirm this but I think they're called....the grips...


----------



## Kav

Grips, scales, panels and in the case of my sadly sold C 96 the broomhandle or cowsfoot.


----------



## Howard

I should own a pistol for just in case one of my co-workers piss me off at my workplace.


----------



## Wayfarer

Howard said:


> I should own a pistol for just in case one of my co-workers piss me off at my workplace.


Howa, going to show him who is the Pimp of the Box?


----------



## Howard

Wayfarer said:


> Howa, going to show him who is the Pimp of the Box?


The Pathmark Pimp!


----------



## Wayfarer

Howard said:


> The Pathmark Pimp!


Howa, why did all those people want you to go away? They did not like pimps?


----------



## JLibourel

Wayfarer said:


> Jan could probably confirm this but I think they're called....the grips...


Properly speaking, "stocks" is the preferred term, the "grip" being how you hold the pistol. However, most people use "stocks" and "grips" synonymously.

As for the "solid gold" AK-47, it would be infeasible. Gold, even alloyed down to 9k, is far too soft a metal for firearms construction. A gold-PLATED AK-47 would be perfectly feasible, however. As a matter of interest, gold makes quite a good material for bullets, but, of course, it is prohibitively expense for such use.


----------



## The Gabba Goul

Howard said:


> I should own a pistol for just in case one of my co-workers piss me off at my workplace.


hmmmm...what does the union handbook say about packin' iron while in the workplace???


----------



## Kav

Hands Howard an old High Standard over under Deringer in .22 magnum. The stocks ( I forgot the one correct nomenclature) and nylon firing pin bushing have been removed, a steel bushing installed and a leather 'wallet' with trigger cutout secured to pistol with stock screws. I learned this trick from fellow Opera buff 'Tiny' of the Hells Angels . Just don't carry car keys or anything in your pocket with it. trigger pull is heavy, usable accuracy @ a shopping cart length.


----------



## Howard

The Gabba Goul said:


> hmmmm...what does the union handbook say about packin' iron while in the workplace???


Not unless you have it hidden somewhere in your locker.


----------



## Howard

Wayfarer said:


> Howa, why did all those people want you to go away? They did not like pimps?


What people are you referring to?


----------



## Wayfarer

Howard said:


> What people are you referring to?


The Pimp of the Box people Howa. You know who I mean. Give us the dirt. What did Robin think of them asking you to leave? Why did Afroboy not like you?


----------



## Howard

Wayfarer said:


> The Pimp of the Box people Howa. You know who I mean. Give us the dirt. What did Robin think of them asking you to leave? Why did Afroboy not like you?


Robin never said anything and the reason why Afroboy didn't like me was because I annoyed him at times and posting nonsensical stuff that sometimes wasn't related to music.


----------



## Karl89

Howard,



Howard said:


> ....Afroboy didn't like me was because I annoyed him at times and posting nonsensical stuff that sometimes wasn't related to music.


You mean like you do here as well?

Karl


----------



## The Gabba Goul

Howard said:


> Not unless you have it hidden somewhere in your locker.


well...THAT'S BULL$HIT!!!

you tell them that you want to keep your nine tucked into your apron front pocket, and if they have a problem with that then you'll bust a cap in all their @$$es...


----------



## Acct2000

Do you need a silver bullet to finish off a troll or will regular bullets do?? What if you tip them with garlic?


----------



## Wayfarer

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Do you need a silver bullet to finish off a troll or with regular bullets do?? What if you tip them with garlic?


:icon_smile_big:

Good one.


----------



## Laxplayer

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Do you need a silver bullet to finish off a troll or will regular bullets do?? What if you tip them with garlic?


A simple Google search seems to work. :devil:


----------



## flylot74

I guess I shall join in. First, my favorite handgun is a 1911. This Browning design is probably the most dependable and prolific handgun made. I have a fairly nice collection of them from the 1911 to the 1911A1, 1927 Argentine, Gold Cup, 1991, and a couple of Officer's models customized for carry.

Yes, I carry, because I can. What I carry depends on how I am dressed. Sometimes I carry a Seacamp 32, or a FEG 9mm Sakarov, or a cutomized Colt Pocket 9, or a customized Officer's model.

Quite frankly, I hope I never have to draw my handgun. However, I truly enjoy shooting a shotgun, and often. Sporting Clays is my preference when it come time for games with firearms. This is ditto for my wife as well. However, she prefers to shoot skeet because 40 yard crossers and springing teal tend to really mess with her!


----------



## tabasco

flylot74 said:


> This is ditto for my wife as well. However, she prefers to shoot skeet because _*40 yard crossers*_ and springing teal tend to really mess with her!


What are 40 yard crossers?

-ignorant


----------



## Howard

The Gabba Goul said:


> well...THAT'S BULL$HIT!!!
> 
> you tell them that you want to keep your nine tucked into your apron front pocket, and if they have a problem with that then you'll bust a cap in all their @$$es...


I wouldn't want a customer seeing my nine,It'll scare them off.


----------



## Howard

Karl89 said:


> Howard,
> 
> You mean like you do here as well?
> 
> Karl


Yeah,I'm guilty!


----------



## flylot74

tabasco said:


> What are 40 yard crossers?
> 
> -ignorant


Clay targets are thrown in a variety of different presentations: full face, partial face and on edge. They are also thrown at different speeds and distances. A forty yard crosser is a clay target thrown on edge presented forty yards away from the shooter. Often the target presenter will use terrain to aid in giving an optical illusion to truly challenge the shooter, "picking his pocket" as it may.

For example, one could throw the target so that it is along a tree line that is gradually lowering, giving the perception that the target is flying faster than it really is because the is little perceived drop of the bird.


----------



## Omega

I previously read that in the past "a true English gentleman would never leave his house without a penknife in his pocket". I guess the main reason was to sharpen pens in the office.
Yes, UK guns law is weird - you can shoot 12.5mm rifles, but cannot have pistols unless they are 22 calibre and have long barrel. Just recently they banned replicas too.
But talking about traditional pistol or revolver, I think it also depends on the country where you live. 
Makarov, Stechkin, TT or Nagant would be traditional for post-USSR though I would prefer owning Glock 17. I think Luger and Mauser C96 might be considered universal classics.


----------



## Xenon

*P08*

The P08 Parabellum (aka Luger) is the most beautiful production handgun ever made. It is a true sublime work of art in both form and function. It is such a difficult design to manufacture that making it nowadays would cost a fortune- a machinists nightmare!


----------



## Howard

I think every guy or girl should carry a pistol but keep it discreet so no one sees you with it like in a bag or pocketbook.


----------



## english_gent

35 ,000 gun deaths in the USA per anum compared to 600 per anum in the UK !

yes we are lawless heh.

america is the last country to have access to fire-arms , you can't stop blowing each others heads off .

and i'd like a link to stats about the UK having higher crime rates . i find that assertian bizzare.

the USA is second only to south africa in crime rates pro rata.

take the swiss for instance , everyone has to own a gun by law and gun deaths are critically LOW. sensible bunch , those swiss.

i take it their media isnt OBSESSED with violence .

does hollywood ever churn out a film that doesnt involve a gun fight as a means of resolve ??

and puhlease , stop this fallacy that citizens need to be armed to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. you have one now and your pop guns are futile against their military machine.

disarm now and save over 30,000 lives per year.

hope this helps , EG


----------



## Kav

EG, Each culture is an assembly of many things; resources, social structures from borrowed neighboring peoples, older ways of previous cultures and technical innovations to name only a few. Examining any aspect of one against another is of contrast and comparison if not apples and oranges. American gun owners look with horror on UK weapon laws ( this includes knives and crossbows. I think that historical weapon of the yoeman brit, the Yew bow is still legal for now for HM's SUBJECTS) because of our close common history. They worry like a family receiving a returning son who has become vegen, washes his hands incessantly and talks of Rosewell. It might be contagious.---Paragraph break on broken 98--- But I detect a lingering historical smarting here. Our 'popguns' did rather well stirring things up in 1776 and brits have,in between handing us U.S. cousins various political sticky wickets to sort out for you while the exchequer is counting the proceeds, been apoplectic about our national might ever since. So you make films with irish and scottish actors portraying a english secret agent romping about with a german or italian pistol saving Queen ( not Elton) and country with a drink in one hand and page 3 girl in the other. They don't call it RANK studios for nothing mate.---paragraph break on broken 98--- So if you ever come over with the slowly avalanching wave of emigrating brits I'll be charmed to take you to BIG 5 Sporting Goods. Every Saxon son I know has a SMLE from them and begs for my Webly & Scott MK IV 6" Navy. Maybe I will part with it, buy me a Saville Row suit and look smashing what? I'll have it tailored for my own Walther. I'll mold one out of crumbled digestives soaked in P.G. Tipps. I figure two bites will destroy any evidence of wrongdoing if I'm reported waving a biscuit at my tailor to the local constables by some soccer hooligan or radical moslem cleric. Do they still use those tin whistles in the old Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies to summon a Bobby?


----------



## Howard

If people had carried pistols these days,you'd know that a lot of guys and girls would mean business.


----------



## english_gent

Kav said:


> EG, Each culture is an assembly of many things; resources, social structures from borrowed neighboring peoples, older ways of previous cultures and technical innovations to name only a few. Examining any aspect of one against another is of contrast and comparison if not apples and oranges. American gun owners look with horror on UK weapon laws ( this includes knives and crossbows. I think that historical weapon of the yoeman brit, the Yew bow is still legal for now for HM's SUBJECTS) because of our close common history. They worry like a family receiving a returning son who has become vegen, washes his hands incessantly and talks of Rosewell. It might be contagious.---Paragraph break on broken 98--- But I detect a lingering historical smarting here. Our 'popguns' did rather well stirring things up in 1776 and brits have,in between handing us U.S. cousins various political sticky wickets to sort out for you while the exchequer is counting the proceeds, been apoplectic about our national might ever since. So you make films with irish and scottish actors portraying a english secret agent romping about with a german or italian pistol saving Queen ( not Elton) and country with a drink in one hand and page 3 girl in the other. They don't call it RANK studios for nothing mate.---paragraph break on broken 98--- So if you ever come over with the slowly avalanching wave of emigrating brits I'll be charmed to take you to BIG 5 Sporting Goods. Every Saxon son I know has a SMLE from them and begs for my Webly & Scott MK IV 6" Navy. Maybe I will part with it, buy me a Saville Row suit and look smashing what? I'll have it tailored for my own Walther. I'll mold one out of crumbled digestives soaked in P.G. Tipps. I figure two bites will destroy any evidence of wrongdoing if I'm reported waving a biscuit at my tailor to the local constables by some soccer hooligan or radical moslem cleric. Do they still use those tin whistles in the old Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies to summon a Bobby?


huh ??

you said everything but told me nothing there , dude.

since when did mass homicide become a ' quaint custom ' in any civilzed country ??

and your pop guns were pretty useless in 1776 , it took the french army to help you out when we relegated your feeble 'resistance' to a laughable skirmish and sent our resources to other corners of our empire.

face it , you only carry a gun to feel powerful , its a fig leaf in the face of personal impotence.

how can you feel patriotic when you actually want to arm yourselves against your fellow countrymen and kill em on a breath-taking scale ?

america is merely a third world country with money !

love n lollipops , EG .


----------



## Xenon

*fear a government that fears your guns*

Some might say this is a tired phrase but its meaning is timeless : How can I trust you if you don't trust me?

English_gent I noticed you talked only about gun deaths ( and conveniently ignored knive deaths, etc). Although I am a Canadian citizen and resident, I would not even concede to the numbers you put forward for the US. Does the 35 000 include suicide (likely so) does it include police shootings, is that number even accurate ( extremely uncertain-and if its from any anti-gun groups its certainly a fabricated lie)!

Criminality is rising at a much higher rate in UK and Canada than in the US. In the US, those states that now have shall issue CCW, have experienced drops in violent crime rates. The big cities like NY and Washington that historically have strict(ridiculus) gun contol have crime rates significantly higher than elsewhere and places like Vermont that has the least restrictions on firearms has by far the lowest crime rates.

It may often be the case that there is no link between availability of guns and crime rates, however in response to rising crime, the restriction and elimination of legal guns has never worked ( nowhere). It is a knee jerk reaction by either feable minded individual ( sheep), people afraid of thier own shadow or fascist demagogues and cynical politicians.

In my case, it is clear that i was born a free individual, and it is not politicians or goverment that provide my with privilages. The Universe provides me my rights, and i do not need permission to own any object which a can afford for myself or my family. I also do not need permission from anyone to protect my property and my family in any means i see fit.

I am not a slave to anyone even though governments and many citizens themselves the world over believe we are. Taxation and numerous laws everywhere have and are attempting to make us all into slaves ( subjects). Firearms simply represent the last remaining freedom of those that do not want to be slaves ( subjects). It is a symbol of our mindset and an achnowledgement that we do not recognize anyone to be legally superior to us and thus have special privalages ( police, military, special secutiry for politicians, etc) The premier of Quebec ( province where i live) should not be entitled to protection which he would deny me! He is not morally superior to me or my family.

English_gent attacking peoples freedom is the fastest and surest way of making enemies and will attract the strongest reactions.


----------



## english_gent

is carrying an efficient killing device a 'freedom' ??

what kind of freedom is this ??

a civilised gent should be armed with no more than a rapier wit and good social manners .

in fact a snuff box is the most offensive thing one should carry. :icon_smile_big:

and i'm pointing out that americans are the LAST nation who should have access to handguns as they appear to be more than happy to use them on each other.

and the 35,000 gun deaths is common stats , not massaged figures by the 'anti' brigade.


----------



## Akajack

Sadly, with Firearms, there is no such thing as a "common statistic". Please quote "chapter and verse" (source, date, etc.) as we've all been exposed to a lot of statistics manipulation.

For example you could have said something like "The UK paper _The Guardian_, wrote on Thursday, March 24th, 2005":

_"_*How many people die through gun crime in the US?*
_According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, there were 28,663 firearm deaths in the US in 2000. Of that figure, 16,586 (58%) were suicides, 11,071 (39%) were homicides (including 270 deaths from police action), and 1,006 (4%) were due to accidents or undetermined causes. The numbers are by far the highest in the industrialised world, but the National Rifle Association (NRA), claims that firearm accident deaths are at an all-time annual low, nationally and among children, while the US population is at an all-time high. Total gun deaths in the US have been dropping steadily since 1993, when they peaked at almost 40,000."_

At that point we could check your statistics and determine for ourselves if we agree they are reliable - or not, but throwing out numbers, unsubstantiated, is really not cricket. Regards.


----------



## english_gent

i'll accept 28 thousand .. its only a 'mere' 4/5 of what i stated ! *eyes roll*

and may i quote rbecca peters , director of International Action Network on Small Arms ;

' 
In response to the charge that Britain's gun laws have led to soaring rates of violence, I'd like to compliment Mr LaPierre for braving the trip to London. … I'm reminded of a time when the NRA's propaganda was talking about Australia and saying that Australia was in the grip of a crime wave, that Australian citizens were cowering behind locked doors, that Australians had been disarmed. So much so that the Attorney-General of Australia had to write Charleton Heston, the President of National Rife Association, asking him to desist. And he said in his letter, "There are many lessons we can learn from America, but how to deal with gun violence is not one of them." 
If guns made a society safer then the US would be the safest country on Earth. That's clearly not so. It's the least safe of the developed countries. For all the wealth and consumerism and technology that America has that's a paradox. That it still lives in fear. It still sanctions the idea that individual private citizens should have a gun ready for the moment when they may want to kill another human being. And that's a cultural difference between America and many other developed countries actually. Mr LaPierre has referred to Australia and the UJ as having lost the right to have guns for self-defence. That was never the case. '

------- 

so there we have it , what kind of society is america creating that confronts it citizens with so much fear they need the 'freedom' to carry a fire-arm designed to kill another human (these are not hunting weapons ) and have to make such a tragic choice ?

and dont think this is none of my business. this gun culture is another cretinous export of the americans to its 'allies' .

fire-arms were usually the preserve of a tiny minority of hardened criminals in our past , but since hollywood and the 'gangster rap ' music scene has crossed the atlantic , the glorification of gun violence has hit these shores and certain low socio-economic classes now carry guns like fashion accessories.

tah very much ! tupac and the terminator ahoy ! :aportnoy:


----------



## Nicesuit

english_gent said:


> i'll accept 28 thousand .. its only a 'mere' 4/5 of what i stated ! *eyes roll*
> 
> and may i quote rbecca peters , director of International Action Network on Small Arms ;
> 
> '
> In response to the charge that Britain's gun laws have led to soaring rates of violence, I'd like to compliment Mr LaPierre for braving the trip to London. &#8230; I'm reminded of a time when the NRA's propaganda was talking about Australia and saying that Australia was in the grip of a crime wave, that Australian citizens were cowering behind locked doors, that Australians had been disarmed. So much so that the Attorney-General of Australia had to write Charleton Heston, the President of National Rife Association, asking him to desist. And he said in his letter, "There are many lessons we can learn from America, but how to deal with gun violence is not one of them."
> If guns made a society safer then the US would be the safest country on Earth. That's clearly not so. It's the least safe of the developed countries. For all the wealth and consumerism and technology that America has that's a paradox. That it still lives in fear. It still sanctions the idea that individual private citizens should have a gun ready for the moment when they may want to kill another human being. And that's a cultural difference between America and many other developed countries actually. Mr LaPierre has referred to Australia and the UJ as having lost the right to have guns for self-defence. That was never the case. '
> 
> -------
> 
> so there we have it , what kind of society is america creating that confronts it citizens with so much fear they need the 'freedom' to carry a fire-arm designed to kill another human (these are not hunting weapons ) and have to make such a tragic choice ?
> 
> and dont think this is none of my business. this gun culture is another cretinous export of the americans to its 'allies' .
> 
> fire-arms were usually the preserve of a tiny minority of hardened criminals in our past , but since hollywood and the 'gangster rap ' music scene has crossed the atlantic , the glorification of gun violence has hit these shores and certain low socio-economic classes now carry guns like fashion accessories.
> 
> tah very much ! tupac and the terminator ahoy ! :aportnoy:


Neville? Is that you? I would've thought you'd be busy finding fascists to felate. Just because you're willing to give up your rights because you're culturally conditioned to think the government knows what's best for you don't come in here spouting your insipid bullshit about America being a 3rd world country with money. If it wasn't for us you'd be goose stepping in Trafalgar Square with your little Hitler mustache and panting because you can't wait to get home and whack it to pictures of Mussolini. The last time I checked your pathetic panty waste attitude led you into a tad bit of trouble. No matter, your babysitter across the pond will always be there to powder your ass and pick you back up.


----------



## Xenon

80% of your number, OK but again 58% are suicides, people who are determined to end their lives, which is why they are using firearms, and not overdosing on chocolate :icon_smile_big:. Take guns away and they will find an equally effective method ( carbon monaxide, smashing car in pillar or oncoming traffic etc). So you lose 16 500 of your number. Next i can't help but notice homicide was not broken down--like for justifiable homicide or self defense. As you can see the numbers start becoming less and less graphic.

Guns are not about fear, but gun control is! Its amazing how so many talk about democracy and the right to vote for everyone but suddenly fear the common man will turn into a lunatic when in possession of a gun. 

As for quoting Rebecca Peters, or anyone/thing from the UN I think you should understand that this organisation has very little credibility anywhere. Really you should choose a better source. I was thinking of a quote from say.....Elmer fudd and then you could come back with a quote from bugs bunny. 

An efficient killing device. Guns can be that is true. So who will have these? Police and military only ( and of course the priviliged political elite) its true that they are so responsable in thier use right? I am sure a certain latino gentleman in a hurry in the metro in London would agree? Oh but i understand, its OK for police/politicians to make mistakes, mess up, lie, its simply their privilage ! 

So you admit that UK has a gang/gun/violent crime problem. No worry so does Canada. Its looks like all of your wonderful gun laws( and ours) were so effective right? And since its working so well lets have more! We'll just make it even harder for honest citizens and that will reduce.....Sorry what will that reduce again? 

In fact what is your desired outcome from gun control? The arguments and logic you put forward are so week/faulty that one can only come to 2 conclusions: i will let you figure out what those are. Niether give compliment to those who hold them though.


----------



## Akajack

I wouldn't have thought of quoting a souce like the U.S. National Rifle Association (NRA) for statistics or anything thing else. Whether correct or not the NRA are not commonly believed by anyone. I would have to say the same of the quote you chose. At least try to find a somewhat unbiased voice to quote. I'm quite surprised anyone would post that and consider it interesting or topical to the present discussion. It's mearly one side bashing the other side. What good does that do? I mean I could have quoted the British Home Office statistics about rising gun violence, but I wasn't sure if they are considered a reliable source.

I'm not sure if you have been to the U.S. or if you have "learned" all about us from movies, but the U.S. is not Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York and Miami. It's millions upon millions of square miles of folks in towns and villages and small cities. Some hunt for food, some do collect guns, and some are so far from police protection that they do keep guns for protection.

There is a heightened awarness/importance of weapons and guns in particular. This goes back to the very founding of our nation and was considered important enough to be written into our constitution (where it remains today.) So unlike the rule of the Crown, what we have here is an actual right to arm ourselves.

No amount of emotional outbursts on the subject are going to sound like a reasoned argument and there's no need to roll your eyes as i wasn't trying to argue the amount of people killed only showing you how to present your argument in a better light so that you might be taken seriously by people looking for actual facts.



english_gent said:


> i'll accept 28 thousand .. its only a 'mere' 4/5 of what i stated ! *eyes roll*
> 
> and may i quote rbecca peters , director of International Action Network on Small Arms ;
> 
> '
> In response to the charge that Britain's gun laws have led to soaring rates of violence, I'd like to compliment Mr LaPierre for braving the trip to London. &#8230; I'm reminded of a time when the NRA's propaganda was talking about Australia and saying that Australia was in the grip of a crime wave, that Australian citizens were cowering behind locked doors, that Australians had been disarmed. So much so that the Attorney-General of Australia had to write Charleton Heston, the President of National Rife Association, asking him to desist. And he said in his letter, "There are many lessons we can learn from America, but how to deal with gun violence is not one of them."
> If guns made a society safer then the US would be the safest country on Earth. That's clearly not so. It's the least safe of the developed countries. For all the wealth and consumerism and technology that America has that's a paradox. That it still lives in fear. It still sanctions the idea that individual private citizens should have a gun ready for the moment when they may want to kill another human being. And that's a cultural difference between America and many other developed countries actually. Mr LaPierre has referred to Australia and the UJ as having lost the right to have guns for self-defence. That was never the case. '
> 
> -------
> 
> so there we have it , what kind of society is america creating that confronts it citizens with so much fear they need the 'freedom' to carry a fire-arm designed to kill another human (these are not hunting weapons ) and have to make such a tragic choice ?
> 
> and dont think this is none of my business. this gun culture is another cretinous export of the americans to its 'allies' .
> 
> fire-arms were usually the preserve of a tiny minority of hardened criminals in our past , but since hollywood and the 'gangster rap ' music scene has crossed the atlantic , the glorification of gun violence has hit these shores and certain low socio-economic classes now carry guns like fashion accessories.
> 
> tah very much ! tupac and the terminator ahoy ! :aportnoy:


----------



## english_gent

getting back on track ;

' every *gentleman *should have a pistol '

no , every paranoid , aggressive moron should have a pistol .... end of ! :icon_smile:

and plz lets put this 'america saved you ' crap to bed.

you joined in far too late *AND *if it wasn't for the UK alerting the world about the threat of fascist europe and getting stuck in when hitler invaded Poland , you peanut farmers would be talking russian or german too. :icon_smile:

everything you have now is merely a product of opurtunist scavenging of europe after the fall of berlin.

your pres was ready to deal with adolf in the event of his victory and only jumped aboard and 'did the right thing' when hitler declared war on you and was trying to buiild ballistic technology to cross the atlantic .

what have you ever given world apart from a hotdog ??

WE BRITS ARE YOUR GODS ! :icon_smile_big:

like god made man , we created you in our own image . and 'cuz' you are a young nation , you behave like adolescents , clumsily throwing your weight around , being a bit over aggressive and a tad too sex obsessed.

a few more centurys and you might mature a wee bit in your attitudes .

you talk like me , you wanna dress like me , you think like me but you can never be me !

love n pop tarts , EG .


----------



## Kav

Three men were hiking along the White cliffs of Dover in the fog. They hit a piece of eroding chalk and fell off, all fortuitously grabbing onto branches, small outcrops etc. First David looked to the heavens and in a loud voice prayed " Dear God in Heaven, I am but a humble welshman of great sin. But I do sing in your choir and beg of you to save me." A voice from above boomed " David, God loves his welsh, let go and you will be saved." David immediately let go, fell hundreds of feet only to be miraculously plucked from death by a huge wave that broke his fall and delivered him to the shore. Then Angus looked up " Aye Laird, tis powerfull cold ounder me kilt. And I know, I know, I drink to much and haven't been to church in years. But I am kind to dogs and children. So if it pleases you, and is of no little inconvenience, Please save my sorry self." Again the voice boomed down " Angus, I love a nip of the malt myself, and seeing it's a cold day would be uncharitable to let you perish. Let go and I will save you." Angus did so, fell hundreds of feet, and again the miraculous wave plucked him from certain death and David helped him ashore. Meanwhile, Nigel Smyth- Oliphant esq. is changing his grip on a gorse bush and looking very distressed. finally He looks up. " God, I am english. You are english. I attend the one true church, the Anglican weekly. This is very inconvenient and I should be delivered posthaste. The voice again called out. " Nigel, release your grip!" Nigel looked up. "You are God, the true God and no other?" Again, "YES,let gooooooo!" Nigel still hung for several minutes increasingly uncomfortable. Finally with a look of displeasure he let go, fell hundreds of feet and was splattered on the rocks below. David and Angus looked over in horror and then to the heavens. The Fog was clearing. There on the path above stood Dermot, a tide table under his arm looking down. " Stupid Sassanachs never listen."


----------



## english_gent

i'm a hearty fellow and dont you forget it , baby ! :icon_smile:


----------



## Kav

Your a wanker; no more, no less, as stale as the headlines your fish and chips came wrapped in.


----------



## globetrotter

sorry,

it is very hard for a person to make an argument like xenon's and not come off as a paranoid 12 year old, or a simple nutcase. 

and, frankly, I can't see how anybody could possibly not assosiate the number of gun deaths that we have in the US with our insane attitudes about gun ownership. sure, in the UK it may very well be more likly to end up with a bloody face from an agressive drunk, but it is a hell of a lot less likly to end up getting shot. I would rather take my chances with the former than the latter. 


there is not good argument based on facts and rational thought for the type of national self arming campaign that america runs. sure, everyone should have the right to protect themselves in the best way possible - very very seldom do those who choose firearms do so in the rational pursuit of self defense.


----------



## english_gent

globetrotter said:


> sorry,
> 
> it is very hard for a person to make an argument like xenon's and not come off as a paranoid 12 year old, or a simple nutcase.
> 
> and, frankly, I can't see how anybody could possibly not assosiate the number of gun deaths that we have in the US with our insane attitudes about gun ownership. sure, in the UK it may very well be more likly to end up with a bloody face from an agressive drunk, but it is a hell of a lot less likly to end up getting shot. I would rather take my chances with the former than the latter.
> 
> there is not good argument based on facts and rational thought for the type of national self arming campaign that america runs. sure, everyone should have the right to protect themselves in the best way possible - very very seldom do those who choose firearms do so in the rational pursuit of self defense.


its not just gun ownership GT , its the american attitude towards guns . as i pointed out all swiss citizens have to own a gun by law and gun deaths are a rarity.

to observe the american mentallity just look at their entertainemnt output.

as i said , nearly all hollywood films climax in an epic gun battle as a conclusion to the story , same with TV series. americans are brought up on a diet of macho BS . if a film hasn't got a pistol fight the audience don't want to know. this is a very immature , almost childhood fantasy .

i'm a live n let live kinda person . if the american gun frenzy was self contained i wouldn't really care. but this 'terminator' mentallity has been exported and we in the UK are seeing this american cross infection here.
i hear kids saying to each other they are gonna 'pop a cap in your ass' regularly , that kinda macho cretinism has only come from one place. this is very un-english.

after the michael moore film i was discussing the issues raised with americans on mIRC once and a canadian chimed into the debate.

his opinion was , canadians are not as trigger happy as their american neighbours because britain established a huge military and naval base there and established law n order and our relationship only categorically ended recently in history and we still have a relationship of some sorts today.

sensible bunch , those cannucks. they discuss issues rationally and calmly , they dont run around like 5 year olds in cowboys n indians outfits.

im delighted that i am a down to earth englisher .

the american dreamers , dreaming about the 'american dream ' can only do so cuz you HAVE TO BE ASLEEP TO BE A DREAMER ! :icon_smile_big:

im awake and have a firm of grip of reality. its my national characteristic !

EG


----------



## 16412

globetrotter said:


> there is not good argument based on facts and rational thought for the type of national self arming campaign that america runs. sure, everyone should have the right to protect themselves in the best way possible - very very seldom do those who choose firearms do so in the rational pursuit of self defense.


Crimals have always got guns one way or another, and you can count on them having them even if you band and take away guns from everybody else.

english_gent American culture is changing. When I was a boy the though of killing somebody was very rare, whereas today the odds of gitting killed are considerably high. When I was a boy some of the bigger inner cities were dangerous, whereas today it seems everywhere. People said things to other people, but people knew wouldn't do because it was exgaggerated talk, nowadays you don't know. While probably over 90% of Americans would put their gun down to hit it is the 10% that might shoot you instead that scares people. There is a lot of fear in Amercia today that didn't exist when I was in my 20's. It was in the 80's when people started to steal from parked cars at trailheads (people out hiking), before then it was unheard of, but now it is normal, so Americans have certainly gone down hill in respect to others. To take guns away from the innocent is only to add them to the bone yard, because they get intanlged with serious criminals now and then- I'm for the innocent.


----------



## Preu Pummel

I own several guns, some hand, some hunting.

Guns are not something I idealize. I just want something that can shoot the bullets and not foul. Smith and Wesson .38 is the fave hand gun I have. Revolvers are practical unless you are concealing. The mechanisms give me ease. which steadies my aim... ic12337:

My fave hunting rifle is an old Nazi sniper rifle. A Karibiner 98k. Quite a gun, despite being nearly 70 years old. The nazi insignia mean nothing to me, but came stamped on the gun, and I'm not going to sand them off for political correctness.


----------



## Victor123

I always viewed guns as tools for shooting people, but I guess it could be an accessory for suits, or for murder...


----------



## msphotog

Okay, I'll chime in. As a gun owner and member in good standing of the NRA, I obviously support the right to bear arms. I do own 7 handguns, from .22 cal up to 45 Colt, and I try to get to the range every week or so. I also own several rifles, and shoot at paper targets. I also reload for these guns. I don't have a Concealed Carry Permit(CCW), and don't feel the need for one. 
I believe that many posting here have mis-caracterized gun owners as gun-toting, paranoid crazies, just iching to pull their pistols and spray lead on some bad guys. That's just not an accurate depiction of most people. 
I live in West Texas, Odessa, and I grew up shooting. First a BB gun and then a .22. My father, like most others, stressed safety. Never assume a gun is unloaded, always point the gun is a safe direction, ext. 
After I grew up I was allowed to have larger caliber guns, and I have bought and sold many rifles and pistols. All this being said, I'm not paranoid, I don't think that I'm going to need to shoot an attacker, and I don't carry a handgun. I frankly can go anywhere I want around West Texas and feel perfectly safe. The only exception to this is it's practical to carry a pistol in the summer when outside of town to protect yourself from rattlesnakes. I just enjoy target shooting and occasionally hunting(yes, I eat the meat).
The bottom line of my post is that I truly believe that most people are like me. They enjoy shooting, target, skeet and trap, and just plinking at cans and bottles. They don't feel the need to be armed at all times, but they do believe that the Second Amendment gives all of us the right to own guns and use them RESPONSIBLY!

Just my 2 cents,

Mark S.

P.S. My vote for a trad handgun would be the S&W Model 36 Chief's Special, 5-shot, 38 Special, Second would have to be a Model 10 or Model 19, .357(as seen on the Tv show CHIP's)


----------



## Pulledpork

I have never felt the need to own a gun. I have something far more powerful to defend myself - good manners.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

Good manners? I hope that's a joke. "Pardon me, sir, are you certain that you intend to threaten my life? Perhaps you've made a mistake."


----------



## Pulledpork

Sorry, I should have turned the irony switch to "on" before posting.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

Pulledpork said:


> Sorry, I should have turned the irony switch to "on" before posting.


On this website, you probably should.


----------



## ksinc

msphotog said:


> P.S. My vote for a trad handgun would be the S&W Model 36 Chief's Special, 5-shot, 38 Special, Second would have to be a Model 10 or Model 19, .357(as seen on the Tv show CHIP's)


Trad = Ruger Blackhawk

I just picked up a new project gun ...


----------



## Gurdon

I pretty much agree with Mark S's post, although I have not hunted for many years. 

Growing up in the West, I am used to the idea that my neighbors are apt to have guns. I don't mind, even if they are politically or ethnically different from me.

My vote for a trad handgun would go to the S&W Mountain Gun in .45 long Colt.

I am a fan of English clothes, and, especially, English shoes. I am not a fan of English law, particularly in the area of free speech. That it is a crime to publish an untruth offends my sense of personal liberty, as does the ease with which a politician or corporation can successfully sue for slandor.

And then, there are all those cameras.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Liberty Ship

Blogger "Grimm" crafted a thoughtful piece on the subject which I bookmarked and share, below:

"Several of us explored the topic of duels and honor in the comments to a recent post. As a result, the following may be of interest to you.

What does it mean to be a gentleman?

The other day I ventured down to Gwinnett county, which is named for Button Gwinnett, signator of the Declaration of Independence. Gwinnett died in a duel with Lachlan McIntosh, a Continental officer who later became a Valley Forge veteran and general in George Washington's army. I encountered, while walking around, a posh store with very fancy appointments, declaring itself to be "for distinguished gentlemen."

Standing outside, wearing a Stetson hat and blue jeans, I realized that these fellows had a very different definition of "gentleman" from mine. I doubt they understand the concept at all.

"For distinguished gentlemen!" A Google search on the term yields botiques, perfumes, and escort services.

This is not right. A gentleman is defined, as noted in Blackstone's commentaries, as "one qui arma gerit."

That is, "one who bears arms."

The manners and grooming aspects are entirely -- entirely -- secondary. I will explain how they came to be associated with gentlemen in a moment. For now, I will note Major Leggett's objection to gentlemen focusing attention on fashion:

I think that any self-respecting individual should take the time to ensure that their grooming and apparel standards are up to snuff. Nevertheless, I categorically reject the idea that an obsessive concern with the latest fashion trends is the hallmark of gentlemen. That is the hallmark of a fop. Remember, the concept of the gentleman comes the tradition of chivalry, which was itself an ethical system for fighting men, not fashion models.

Blackstone notes, as does the Oxford English Dictionary, that the "arms" in question are heraldic arms -- that is, symbolic ones. Those symbolic arms, however, were the later representation of what was earlier a very real right: the right to bear not only weapons, but armor onto the field. Heraldry describes the shield of a fighter. In the Middle Ages, the sort entitled to such a shield were those with the literal right to bear arms. It is only in these more decadent ages -- in more decadent countries -- that this right has become purely symbolic.

Why did the state recognize that right, in a time before the Declaration that Gwinnett signed? It did so because it depended on these fighters, knights and noblemen and squires, who later became the gentlemen. It needed them to defend itself. Before the Napoleonic era, wars were a matter of professional armies and levies raised by the fedual structure. The right to bear arms arose from the fact that you could be counted upon to defend your country and its civilization at need.

That is what it means today. Fine manners and courtesy pertain to the gentleman because he is, through their use, upholding what is fine about civilization. He defends it symbolically as he defends it practically.

In America, the right to bear arms is secured in the Constitution itself. If you wish to register heraldic arms, follow this link to the American College of Heraldry. If you wish to bear literal ones, you have the right to do so. Every American man can be a gentleman.

To do so, though, requires that you constitute yourself a defender of your country and its civilization. It is not enough to say, as did Dutch humanist Oscar van den Boogaard:

"I am not a warrior, but who is?" he shrugged. "I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."

No, that is not a gentleman, though he wears the finest clothes and writes the finest novels, keeps the best society, and has the finest manners. He has only the accidents of a gentleman. He has nothing of its essence.

The essence is to bear arms, in defense of country and civilization. That is the real thing, the root of the tradition. The arms may be symbolic, or they may be actual. The defense must be devout.

That may sit ill with some, but there it is. Honi soit qui mal y pense,* goes the motto of the greatest of England's knightly orders.

* Literally, "Shame to him who thinks evil of it" -- or, if you'd rather have it in modern American, "&#%@ you if you don't like it."

December 01, 2006 • Permalink

https://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/12/to_be_a_gentlem.html


----------



## BertieW

America's fascination with guns is sick. 

These guys, on the other hand, had it going on:


----------



## ksinc

Gurdon said:


> I pretty much agree with Mark S's post, although I have not hunted for many years.
> 
> Growing up in the West, I am used to the idea that my neighbors are apt to have guns. I don't mind, even if they are politically or ethnically different from me.
> 
> My vote for a trad handgun would go to the S&W Mountain Gun in .45 long Colt.
> 
> I am a fan of English clothes, and, especially, English shoes. I am not a fan of English law, particularly in the area of free speech. That it is a crime to publish an untruth offends my sense of personal liberty, as does the ease with which a politician or corporation can successfully sue for slandor.
> 
> And then, there are all those cameras.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


I like your style, Gurdon. English shoes and 4" big bore Smiths are a good combo! 

Is yours blue or stainless? I have a stainless 4" 625-3 in .45 ACP, but it shoots very light 'social' loads and isn't much of a "mountain gun." I have several 25-2s as well. I'm a little 'spooked' on the 25-5 and 625-5 with getting the heavy Ruger only loads mixed up someday.


----------



## Pulledpork

Gurdon said:


> ...I am not a fan of English law, particularly in the area of free speech. That it is a crime to publish an untruth offends my sense of personal liberty, as does the ease with which a politician or corporation can successfully sue for slandor.
> 
> And then, there are all those cameras.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


I agree with you about the cameras, but what principles do you think the American legal system is founded on? Are you familar with the defamation laws that exist in many American jurisdictions?


----------



## PedanticTurkey

Pulledpork said:


> I agree with you about the cameras, but what principles do you think the American legal system is founded on? Are you familar with the defamation laws that exist in many American jurisdictions?


Are you? Aren't you wondering why our president hasn't sued the thousands of idiots who say he planned 9/11 or lied about WMD in Iraq?


----------



## 16412

The first duty of government is to enable you to defend yourself and family and who ever else is in need when they (government) can not or will not.

Government can be very inadequate. So trusting the government can be very sorrowful, if your alive to do it. My personal experience is government is not to be relied upon. Too many wolfs wearing sheep clothes in government.


----------



## Pulledpork

PedanticTurkey said:


> Are you? Aren't you wondering why our president hasn't sued the thousands of idiots who say he planned 9/11 or lied about WMD in Iraq?


Somewhat, and I don't really care very much.


----------



## ksinc

PedanticTurkey said:


> Are you? Aren't you wondering why our president hasn't sued the thousands of idiots who say he planned 9/11 or lied about WMD in Iraq?


I honestly don't think I could be President and put up with some of the stuff he does. And to add insult to injury people compare him to Hitler and Stalin! If W was Stalin-like some of these people would be posting from _re-education camps_ instead of bashing him freely from the safety of government subsidized housing.


----------



## Gurdon

Pulledpork said:


> I agree with you about the cameras, but what principles do you think the American legal system is founded on? Are you familar with the defamation laws that exist in many American jurisdictions?


American law is rooted in English common law, albeit with contributions from French and Spanish legal systems, as with respect to land and water, respectively.

I am generally aware of defamation laws in the US as compared with those in the UK. Except for laws in Texas making it illegal to denegrate beef, US law generally favors freedom of speech to a much greater degree than is the case in Great Britain. This is a bias I favor.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Pulledpork

Gurdon said:


> ...US law generally favors freedom of speech to a much greater degree than is the case in Great Britain. This is a bias I favor.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


I have heard this sentiment expressed before, and I am curious to know why you think that is the case.


----------



## Gurdon

*Well, actually...*



ksinc said:


> I honestly don't think I could be President and put up with some of the stuff he does. And to add insult to injury people compare him to Hitler and Stalin! If W was Stalin-like some of these people would be posting from _re-education camps_ instead of bashing him freely from the safety of government subsidized housing.


Actually, W's drivellsome rants and formulaic pronouncements of untruths do bring to mind newsreel images of Hitler. And, his administration, with the connivance of Congress, has put in place the legal foundations for a police state as totalitarian as that of Nazi Germany or the USSR under Stalin. So far, though, W's body count is miniscule compared with the tens of millions killed by orders from Hitler and Stalin.

By subsidized housing I presume you mean dwellings financed by mortgages on which the interest is subject to a tax deduction.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## PedanticTurkey

The gist of it is that the first amendment requires that political speech and speech concerning public matters is protected such that it's almost impossible to make a defamation case unless it's knowingly and maliciously false.


----------



## ksinc

Gurdon said:


> By subsidized housing I presume you mean dwellings financed by mortgages on which the interest is subject to a tax deduction.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


Yes, that; and the mortgage rates themselves (Fannie, Freddie, the whole system is subsidized.)

I just saw where they need another $75 Billion in capital to meet their requirements due to writedowns. However, they might get an "exemption."


----------



## ksinc

Gurdon said:


> Actually, W's drivellsome rants and formulaic pronouncements of untruths do bring to mind newsreel images of Hitler. And, his administration, with the connivance of Congress, has put in place the legal foundations for a police state as totalitarian as that of Nazi Germany or the USSR under Stalin. *So far, though, W's body count is miniscule compared with the tens of millions killed by orders from Hitler and Stalin.*
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


Clearly, we are going to disagree that is the lone exception. Cheers!


----------



## Gurdon

Pulledpork said:


> I have heard this sentiment expressed before, and I am curious to know why you think that is the case.


I do not know the history of the evolution of laws relating to defamation in the UK versus the US. I am sure there are members of this forum who can recite it and I hope someone chooses to do so as I'd like to know.

In a broadly general sense I suspect the contrast may reside in reaction to the class basis of the UK verses the egalitarian biases of the Founding Fathers, at least the Jeffersonian ones. We favor the right of the individual to speak his mind over the right of a person, irrespective of rank, to sue over hurt feelings or damaged reputation.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Gurdon

ksinc said:


> Clearly, we are going to disagree that is the lone exception. Cheers!


That, and my S&W is blued rather than stainless.

Take care,
Gurdon


----------



## Gurdon

*Sovereignty of the individual*

Americans are not necessarily gentlemen, or gentlewomen, yet we are all (supposed to be) equal before the law. In any event, we have an egalitarian thread in our history absent from the class-based hierarchy of the UK.

In my view gun ownership is symbolic of the ultimate sovereignty of the individual. This is distinct from the notion, set forth above by Liberty Ship, that the right to bear arms is somehow dependent on one's willingness to serve the state.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## globetrotter

Liberty Ship said:


> Blogger "Grimm" crafted a thoughtful piece on the subject which I bookmarked and share, below:
> 
> "Several of us explored the topic of duels and honor in the comments to a recent post. As a result, the following may be of interest to you.
> 
> What does it mean to be a gentleman?
> 
> The other day I ventured down to Gwinnett county, which is named for Button Gwinnett, signator of the Declaration of Independence. Gwinnett died in a duel with Lachlan McIntosh, a Continental officer who later became a Valley Forge veteran and general in George Washington's army. I encountered, while walking around, a posh store with very fancy appointments, declaring itself to be "for distinguished gentlemen."
> 
> Standing outside, wearing a Stetson hat and blue jeans, I realized that these fellows had a very different definition of "gentleman" from mine. I doubt they understand the concept at all.
> 
> "For distinguished gentlemen!" A Google search on the term yields botiques, perfumes, and escort services.
> 
> This is not right. A gentleman is defined, as noted in Blackstone's commentaries, as "one qui arma gerit."
> 
> That is, "one who bears arms."
> 
> The manners and grooming aspects are entirely -- entirely -- secondary. I will explain how they came to be associated with gentlemen in a moment. For now, I will note Major Leggett's objection to gentlemen focusing attention on fashion:
> 
> I think that any self-respecting individual should take the time to ensure that their grooming and apparel standards are up to snuff. Nevertheless, I categorically reject the idea that an obsessive concern with the latest fashion trends is the hallmark of gentlemen. That is the hallmark of a fop. Remember, the concept of the gentleman comes the tradition of chivalry, which was itself an ethical system for fighting men, not fashion models.
> 
> Blackstone notes, as does the Oxford English Dictionary, that the "arms" in question are heraldic arms -- that is, symbolic ones. Those symbolic arms, however, were the later representation of what was earlier a very real right: the right to bear not only weapons, but armor onto the field. Heraldry describes the shield of a fighter. In the Middle Ages, the sort entitled to such a shield were those with the literal right to bear arms. It is only in these more decadent ages -- in more decadent countries -- that this right has become purely symbolic.
> 
> Why did the state recognize that right, in a time before the Declaration that Gwinnett signed? It did so because it depended on these fighters, knights and noblemen and squires, who later became the gentlemen. It needed them to defend itself. Before the Napoleonic era, wars were a matter of professional armies and levies raised by the fedual structure. The right to bear arms arose from the fact that you could be counted upon to defend your country and its civilization at need.
> 
> That is what it means today. Fine manners and courtesy pertain to the gentleman because he is, through their use, upholding what is fine about civilization. He defends it symbolically as he defends it practically.
> 
> In America, the right to bear arms is secured in the Constitution itself. If you wish to register heraldic arms, follow this link to the American College of Heraldry. If you wish to bear literal ones, you have the right to do so. Every American man can be a gentleman.
> 
> To do so, though, requires that you constitute yourself a defender of your country and its civilization. It is not enough to say, as did Dutch humanist Oscar van den Boogaard:
> 
> "I am not a warrior, but who is?" he shrugged. "I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."
> 
> No, that is not a gentleman, though he wears the finest clothes and writes the finest novels, keeps the best society, and has the finest manners. He has only the accidents of a gentleman. He has nothing of its essence.
> 
> The essence is to bear arms, in defense of country and civilization. That is the real thing, the root of the tradition. The arms may be symbolic, or they may be actual. The defense must be devout.
> 
> That may sit ill with some, but there it is. Honi soit qui mal y pense,* goes the motto of the greatest of England's knightly orders.
> 
> * Literally, "Shame to him who thinks evil of it" -- or, if you'd rather have it in modern American, "&#%@ you if you don't like it."
> 
> December 01, 2006 • Permalink
> 
> https://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/12/to_be_a_gentlem.html


this is very close to my beliefs, in a lot of ways. I think that part of being a gentleman is keeping and bearing arms, in the right time and place. but, in the same way that I find it distastful when a grown man wears a cowboy hat a boots when he is an account from new jersey, I think that it is silly and distastful when a man thinks that buying a bunch of guns means that he keeps and bears arms.

if you want to be a gentleman, in the sense of bearing arms, there are plenty of options to do so - 4 or 5 branches or US military and a handful of foreign militaries that are reasonable options, as well as a a variety of other organizations.

on the other hand, one can be a perfectly good gentleman without bearing arms.

but, in my opinion, the thought that buying a collections of guns makes you a gentleman is silly.


----------



## Pulledpork

Gurdon said:


> Americans are not necessarily gentlemen, or gentlewomen, yet we are all (supposed to be) equal before the law. In any event, we have an egalitarian thread in our history absent from the class-based hierarchy of the UK.
> 
> In my view gun ownership is symbolic of the ultimate sovereignty of the individual. This is distinct from the notion, set forth above by Liberty Ship, that the right to bear arms is somehow dependent on one's willingness to serve the state.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


Do you think that there is no class based heirarchy in the USA, or are you saying that your class system is more egalitarian than the one in the UK?

Interesting comment about gun ownership. If it is symbolic of the ultimate sovereignty of the individual, then why not just own a symbolic gun? :icon_smile:


----------



## globetrotter

Gurdon said:


> In my view gun ownership is symbolic of the ultimate sovereignty of the individual. This is distinct from the notion, set forth above by Liberty Ship, that the right to bear arms is somehow dependent on one's willingness to serve the state.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


but we aren't soveriegns - we are part of a larger society, and we function as such. in the case of the US, and a small number of other militaries, serving is not about serving the state - by serving, you serve teh interests of yourself, your famly and your community.


----------



## Pulledpork

globetrotter said:


> but we aren't soveriegns - we are part of a larger society, and we function as such. in the case of the US, and a small number of other militaries, serving is not about serving the state - by serving, you serve teh interests of yourself, your famly and your community.


From what I can tell, it all boils down to where one draws the boundries of one's community.


----------



## Gurdon

Pulledpork said:


> Do you think that there is no class based heirarchy in the USA, or are you saying that your class system is more egalitarian than the one in the UK?
> 
> Interesting comment about gun ownership. If it is symbolic of the ultimate sovereignty of the individual, then why not just own a symbolic gun? :icon_smile:


There is a class system in the US. It is more of a meritocracy than that in the UK. You can buy your way in or excell academically or in some other way. This is, of course, an oversimplification. Most of us are not on social register, nor are we part of the oligarchy.

IMHO, most guns are symbolic. A hand gun or hunting rifle has little meaningful tactical value, although I defer on this point to Globtrotter and others with practical experience.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Pulledpork

Gurdon said:


> There is a class system in the US. It is more of a meritocracy than that in the UK. You can buy your way in or excell academically or in some other way. This is, of course, an oversimplification. Most of us are not on social register, nor are we part of the oligarchy...


The UK's class system is also permiable - one can buy one's way in, or be a captain of industry, or serve the crown, or be a contributor to the arts. There have always been degrees of social mobility, this is one of the reasons why it still exists.


----------



## Gurdon

*perhaps*



globetrotter said:


> but we aren't soveriegns - we are part of a larger society, and we function as such. in the case of the US, and a small number of other militaries, serving is not about serving the state - by serving, you serve teh interests of yourself, your famly and your community.


This may have been so in the past. I believe it was in WWII. In my view, this was not the case in Viet Nam nor in George I's Gulf War. I do not think the current war is in either our nation's interest or in the interests of myself, my family or my community.

I consider recognition of the primacy of the individual as the basis for loyalty to the nation. In that sense each of us is sovereign.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## PedanticTurkey

I think people today would be shocked by the founders' opinions of professional militaries and police forces--suffice to say, they saw keeping a standing army as a necessary evil at best. And that's what the police are, by the way-- a standing army. The full-time, professional police force was unknown to the founders, too. So we've got something like 4 million people employed to do a job that the founders thought the government ought to be very reluctant to do at best.

Policing and defending the country was supposed to be left to the people.

It was hoped that the second amendment would help provide security _by protecting the power of the individual_ _to, well, kill people._ I know it sounds like a contradiction to modern ears, but the founders thought that only self-sufficient, independent, and self-empowered people could ensure a free state.

It's kind of the opposite of the present mindset-- the government ought to take responsibility off your hands wherever it can-- why be self-sufficient when you can have government services and checks? And defense of your home or country? Leave it to the professionals!

And if you don't want to? Well, the professionals will come get you!


----------



## Pulledpork

PedanticTurkey said:


> ...Policing and defending the country was supposed to be left to the people...


While it is true that Jefferson shared the English horror of standing armies, Madison and his advisors soon learned that militias where no match for a well drilled army in the initial stages of the War of 1812. I think the militia argument is a canard.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

Anyone who wrote the militias off after the War of 1812 had certainly changed their mind by Manassas.


----------



## Pulledpork

PedanticTurkey said:


> Anyone who wrote the militias off after the War of 1812 had certainly changed their mind by Manassas.


How so? Both the Union and Confederate armies taking part in the battle were quite unseasoned.

Coincidentally, I visited the site of the battle back in May. The beauty of those rolling hills is quite a sight to behold. There were some re-enacters there firing off a cannon, and I remember saying to one of them that I can certainly understand how people felt so passionately when looking to defend such beautiful country. I think he appreciated my comments.


----------



## globetrotter

Gurdon said:


> This may have been so in the past. I believe it was in WWII. In my view, this was not the case in Viet Nam nor in George I's Gulf War. I do not think the current war is in either our nation's interest or in the interests of myself, my family or my community.
> 
> I consider recognition of the primacy of the individual as the basis for loyalty to the nation. In that sense each of us is sovereign.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


true, but we are in a democracy. I have a 6 year old son, I will work to do what I can to keep him from being part of the wrong wars, as are my rights and obligations as a citizen in a democracy. but I feel it will be his obligation, as a citizen and a gentleman, to serve and do his part for his society, as I did, my father did, my gradfathers did.


----------



## globetrotter

PedanticTurkey said:


> I think people today would be shocked by the founders' opinions of professional militaries and police forces--suffice to say, they saw keeping a standing army as a necessary evil at best. And that's what the police are, by the way-- a standing army. The full-time, professional police force was unknown to the founders, too. So we've got something like 4 million people employed to do a job that the founders thought the government ought to be very reluctant to do at best.
> 
> Policing and defending the country was supposed to be left to the people.
> 
> It was hoped that the second amendment would help provide security _by protecting the power of the individual_ _to, well, kill people._ I know it sounds like a contradiction to modern ears, but the founders thought that only self-sufficient, independent, and self-empowered people could ensure a free state.
> 
> It's kind of the opposite of the present mindset-- the government ought to take responsibility off your hands wherever it can-- why be self-sufficient when you can have government services and checks? And defense of your home or country? Leave it to the professionals!
> 
> And if you don't want to? Well, the professionals will come get you!


that was great when the standing army and the country farmer were both armed with muskets and a handful of powder and balls. no nation can protect its interests without a well trained army. what is shamefull in the US is how small the pool that provides the military and security forces are.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

Pulledpork said:


> How so? Both the Union and Confederate armies taking part in the battle were quite unseasoned.


Maybe not the best example I could have used, considering who the Southern militia were fighting...

Let's just assume I was referring to the Second Manassas then.



> Coincidentally, I visited the site of the battle back in May. The beauty of those rolling hills is quite a sight to behold. There were some re-enacters there firing off a cannon, and I remember saying to one of them that I can certainly understand how people felt so passionately when looking to defend such beautiful country. I think he appreciated my comments.


Great! My experience is limited to other theaters where the battlefields haven't been so well preserved.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

globetrotter said:


> that was great when the standing army and the country farmer were both armed with muskets and a handful of powder and balls. no nation can protect its interests without a well trained army. what is shamefull in the US is how small the pool that provides the military and security forces are.


I guess that's true, to the extent that the country's interests include bombing Serbia or invading Canada.


----------



## Pulledpork

PedanticTurkey said:


> Maybe not the best example I could have used, considering who the Southern militia were fighting...
> 
> Let's just assume I was referring to the Second Manassas then...


Well quite, but fighting a civil war is really the only thing militias are good for. A country can't fight off a foreign invasion with a militia, and certainly can't invade a foreign country with one either. That lesson was learned in 1812.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

Really-- I don't see it. Aside from the half-hearted invasion of Canada and the debacle at Washington, would you remind me of the other militia failures...? Certainly the militia precluded the British from ever reconquering the country; the best they could accomplish were raids.


----------



## Pulledpork

PedanticTurkey said:


> Really-- I don't see it. Aside from the half-hearted invasion of Canada and the debacle at Washington, would you remind me of the other militia failures...? Certainly the militia precluded the British from ever reconquering the country; the best they could accomplish were raids.


The British were never interested in reconquering the country. In 1776 there was very strong support amongst the English people and in the Commons for granting independance to the American colony, and the war of 1812 only happened because the American cotton mills wanted to trade with Napoleon, and Madison rather ill-advisedly took the opportunity to try to invade Canada.

It is more accurate to say that (other than the War of 1812, as previously discussed) militias were never really proven as being effective at protecting national boundries or invading a foreign country, whereas a standing army (as distasteful as the concept might be), was a proven way of achieving these ends.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

The British never imagined reconquering the country, because it was beyond their means. If they'd put their whole empire to work on it, they'd still have failed.

What we really needed during that war was a navy to protect the coastline from the British raiders. But--remember, they got lucky at Washington. They tried the same thing at least two other times (I'm sure it was more) at Baltimore and New Orleans. Remember how those turned out?


----------



## Gurdon

*A day in history*

Pedantic Turkey and Gurdon actually agree about something political! Now if PT would just come around on single payer health care....

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Pulledpork

PedanticTurkey said:


> The British never imagined reconquering the country, because it was beyond their means. If they'd put their whole empire to work on it, they'd still have failed.


There are a variety of reasons why the British never tried to reconquer the American colony, historical events can never really be attributed to one single cause. At the time, reconquering the American colony wouldn't have made much sense as the British Empire was doing quite nicely out of India, and after the war of 1812 commercial and social links between the two countries became so close that a war of reconquest wouldn't have made sense. Don't discount the affection the British people held and still hold for Americans though - so much of the writing produced by the American founding fathers was the continuation of thought that had been happening in England for at least 200 years prior to 1776. Even the catchy phrase "No taxation without representation" is a very English idea, owing it's origins to the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

If you are interested, JH Plum has written some very good books about the period and sequence of events made the American revolution look the way it did, and analysing why George III made the decisions that he did.



PedanticTurkey said:


> What we really needed during that war was a navy to protect the coastline from the British raiders. But--remember, they got lucky at Washington. They tried the same thing at least two other times (I'm sure it was more) at Baltimore and New Orleans. Remember how those turned out?


Yes New Orleans was a lost battle for Britain, but the British fleet just moved up the coast to Mobile and went on to win the Battle of Ft. Bowyer, which was the last conflict of the war. England then went on to defeat Napoleon, and the Treaty of Ghent that the USA signed was something of a diplomatic embarrasment for the Americans because none of the reasons that Madison gave for declaring war (IE: the impressment of American sailors) were covered in the treaty.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

Well, there's a variety of reasons I've never tried to beat up Mike Tyson, but when you think about it, only one of them really matters.

As to Ft. Bowyer, I had to look that one up. A successful raid on a vulnerable wooden fort. I'm not sure what it has to do with the militia discussion, though. I think it just goes to the vulnerability of a very sparsely-populated coastline to naval raids, which I think we've already established.


----------



## ksinc

Gurdon said:


> Pedantic Turkey and Gurdon actually agree about something political! Now if PT would just come around on single payer health care....
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


How could anyone have a problem with single payer healthcare?

It's the 390 million payer healthcare system that troubles me. :devil:


----------



## Pulledpork

PedanticTurkey said:


> Well, there's a variety of reasons I've never tried to beat up Mike Tyson, but when you think about it, only one of them really matters.


You must be one of those people who has beliefs rather than considers perspectives and frames arguments. Applying your logic, the only reason that matters is that invading and reconquering the USA in the 19th century wasn't in the interest of the British emipire. There was just too much trade between the two countries after the war of 1812 to make war a viable option, viz: the British Empire didn't invade because it didn't need to invade.



PedanticTurkey said:


> As to Ft. Bowyer, I had to look that one up. A successful raid on a vulnerable wooden fort. I'm not sure what it has to do with the militia discussion, though. I think it just goes to the vulnerability of a very sparsely-populated coastline to naval raids, which I think we've already established.


So do you think then that standing armies are bad, but a standing navy is OK?

Your entire justification for the public ownership of firearms is predicated on the term "militia" in the second amendment. The War of 1812 proved conclusively that local militias are ineffective against a well drilled standing army, and have been an irrelevancy since the early 19th century. Other than hunting to put food on the table, what possible need is there for any American to own a firearm in the 21st century?


----------



## PedanticTurkey

Pulledpork said:


> You must be one of those people who has beliefs rather than considers perspectives and frames arguments. Applying your logic, the only reason that matters is that invading and reconquering the USA in the 19th century wasn't in the interest of the British emipire. There was just too much trade between the two countries after the war of 1812 to make war a viable option, viz: the British Empire didn't invade because it didn't need to invade.


The British didn't invade because it wasn't in their interest. I can buy that--because it would hardly have been in their interest to attempt something that was nearly impossible. Think about it for a second. The UK was kidnapping Americans and pressing them into service in its navy. Is that the sort of thing a strong country does?

What folks often don't realize is that historically England was greatly underpopulated compared to its rivals. Today England and France have roughly the same populations, but IIRC France had between three and four times more people during the Napoleonic wars. In fact, during the war of 1812, England had _approximately the same population as the United States_. Do you think they were in any position to project the kind of power across the Atlantic that they would need to reconquer the US? No way, and they knew it.



> So do you think then that standing armies are bad, but a standing navy is OK?


Notice how the Constitution limits Congress' power to raise armies to two years at a time, but doesn't have a similar restriction on the navy? It's hardly a new or remarkable idea.



> Your entire justification for the public ownership of firearms is predicated on the term "militia" in the second amendment.


That's a silly thing to say. I know I've never said any such thing. The "militia" of the second amendment refers to the body of the people who are capable of bearing arms. Securing a free state through individual liberty wasn't the "purpose" of the amendment, it was the hoped-for result. The purpose of the amendment was to protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms from the government.



> The War of 1812 proved conclusively that local militias are ineffective against a well drilled standing army,


No it didn't.



> and have been an irrelevancy since the early 19th century.


Again, tell that to the Yankees, who took four years and overwhelming superiority to overcome the South's initial advantage in well-regulated militia.



> Other than hunting to put food on the table, what possible need is there for any American to own a firearm in the 21st century?


Need? I guess we do live in a democracy, after all-- so we can just, vote right? And since our government is so wise and benevolent, what's the need for free speech, or freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures?


----------



## globetrotter

> Again, tell that to the Yankees, who took four years and overwhelming superiority to overcome the South's initial advantage in well-regulated militia.


actually, that is a very weak argument, Turkey, the south essentially took the officer class of the federal army and built an army around that. if the south had had to build up a militia with nobody who had been trained by the the federal army, the war would have been over in a matter of hours.

look at the successful "militias" in the world today - probrably the best being hizballah. they use officers, intellegence, communications, logistics and air and artillary support provided by countries with standing armies. none of those are handled particularly well by amatuers.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

I don't think anyone argues that "militias" (by which I imagine you mean small, independent groups of eccentric people with guns) are the proper defense; it's "a militia," the body of armed citizens.

The fact is that if we could muster 30 million armed and trained men, it doesn't matter if they're up to the level of a professional army, because no one could possibly screw with us.

As to the role of Southern militia in the giving the South an early advantage, I don't think it's a controversial point at all that the South had better leadership _and_ better troops.


----------



## globetrotter

PedanticTurkey said:


> I don't think anyone argues that "militias" (by which I imagine you mean small, independent groups of eccentric people with guns) are the proper defense; it's "a militia," the body of armed citizens.
> 
> The fact is that if we could muster 30 million armed and trained men, it doesn't matter if they're up to the level of a professional army, because no one could possibly screw with us.


subsaharan africa can field 30 million infantry, if it wanted to. 12 f-16's with napalm and enough fuel to make a couple of hundred runs could kill them all in a week.

"armed and trained" is relative. there is no civilliam body that can train people to fight an army effectivly. very few civillians can afford the type of weapons that are needed to fight an army.



> As to the role of Southern militia in the giving the South an early advantage, I don't think it's a controversial point at all that the South had better leadership _and_ better troops.


but, you are bypassing the main point - these troops, and more importantly these officers, were not trained by their communities, they were trained by the federal government, or in instances state armies suported by the federal government. this was in no way a militia


----------



## PedanticTurkey

globetrotter said:


> subsaharan africa can field 30 million infantry, if it wanted to. 12 f-16's with napalm and enough fuel to make a couple of hundred runs could kill them all in a week.


I think we know that's not true.



> "armed and trained" is relative. there is no civilliam body that can train people to fight an army effectivly. very few civillians can afford the type of weapons that are needed to fight an army.


An m-16 costs, what, $400? It'd be a lot cheaper, too, if you were building 30,000,000 them. But just assume $400-- that's $12 billion. Maybe we cut cut half the pork off the next appropriations bill and easily provide every military-age man in the country with a rifle. I know you're probably upset with the idea of some Democrat-congressman's buddy losing $75,000,000 for "peanut storage," but it's a small sacrifice.



> but, you are bypassing the main point - these troops, and more importantly these officers, were not trained by their communities, they were trained by the federal government, or in instances state armies suported by the federal government. this was in no way a militia


No, they weren't. People in the South not only had more opportunities to shoot just by virtue of where they lived, but they also had a fear of, uh, how should I say it-- civil unrest-- that wasn't present in the North. That kept the Southern militias from degenerating into marching bands like they did in the North.


----------



## Pulledpork

PedanticTurkey said:


> The British didn't invade because it wasn't in their interest. I can buy that--because it would hardly have been in their interest to attempt something that was nearly impossible. Think about it for a second. The UK was kidnapping Americans and pressing them into service in its navy. Is that the sort of thing a strong country does?
> 
> What folks often don't realize is that historically England was greatly underpopulated compared to its rivals. Today England and France have roughly the same populations, but IIRC France had between three and four times more people during the Napoleonic wars. In fact, during the war of 1812, England had _approximately the same population as the United States_. Do you think they were in any position to project the kind of power across the Atlantic that they would need to reconquer the US? No way, and they knew it.


Britain was strong enough to repulse an American invasion of Canada, and fight Napoleon to victory at the same time. Do you think that the only reason one country might not invade another is because it would be difficult? Do many Americans share this opinion?



PedanticTurkey said:


> The "militia" of the second amendment refers to the body of the people who are capable of bearing arms. Securing a free state through individual liberty wasn't the "purpose" of the amendment, it was the hoped-for result. The purpose of the amendment was to protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms from the government.


Thats quite a stretch, and many would disagree with your assesment.



PedanticTurkey said:


> Need? I guess we do live in a democracy, after all-- so we can just, vote right? And since our government is so wise and benevolent, what's the need for free speech, or freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures?


So the main reason you want to keep your gun is in case there is another civil war?


----------



## Pulledpork

PedanticTurkey said:


> ...The fact is that if we could muster 30 million armed and trained men, it doesn't matter if they're up to the level of a professional army, because no one could possibly screw with us...


Oh I don't know, a potential enemy wouldn't have to risk an invasion. They could just subvert your economy and drive the value of your currency down until it is practically worthless.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

Pulledpork said:


> Britain was strong enough to repulse an American invasion of Canada, and fight Napoleon to victory at the same time. Do you think that the only reason one country might not invade another is because it would be difficult? Do many Americans share this opinion?


Let's see-- they repulsed a half-hearted invasion of Canada and were the smallest of the three major nations that combined to defeat Napoleon at Waterloo, after the Russians and the Prussians had beaten the hell of the French previously. There's just no way you can spin it that the UK was a major land power of the day, because it wasn't.



> Thats quite a stretch, and many would disagree with your assesment.


Yes, many would disagree, because many believe that the Constitution is their private plaything. No one, and I mean _no one_, who has honestly looked at the evidence (not to mention the plain text of the amendment, sheesh!) would disagree with this. It's plain English.



> So the main reason you want to keep your gun is in case there is another civil war?


The main reason that I want to keep my gun is because it's _my f'in gun_. Not your gun. My gun. If the 2nd amendment isn't enough for you, what about the 5th amendment? Sheesh!


----------



## globetrotter

PedanticTurkey said:


> I think we know that's not true.
> 
> An m-16 costs, what, $400? It'd be a lot cheaper, too, if you were building 30,000,000 them. But just assume $400-- that's $12 billion. Maybe we cut cut half the pork off the next appropriations bill and easily provide every military-age man in the country with a rifle. I know you're probably upset with the idea of some Democrat-congressman's buddy losing $75,000,000 for "peanut storage," but it's a small sacrifice.


But see here is your big mistake. Having a rifle has nothing what so ever with having the ability to fight an army. I will repeat whaty I said - there is no civillian organization in the world that can train men to fight an army. A bunch of civillians with rifles and no logistics, artilary, intellegence or communicatons is just a mob



> No, they weren't. People in the South not only had more opportunities to shoot just by virtue of where they lived, but they also had a fear of, uh, how should I say it-- civil unrest-- that wasn't present in the North. That kept the Southern militias from degenerating into marching bands like they did in the North.


Again you are confusing shooting with fighting. The south had great fighting men, but they were worthless without the federally ttained officers.


----------



## Pulledpork

PedanticTurkey said:


> ...half-hearted invasion of Canada...


Half hearted enough to cause a rift between New England and the other states that if left unchecked could have become the first American civil war. Madison took a big gamble by tacitly backing Napoleon, and lost. Luckily for you Britain was able to defeat the French menace, or you would be speaking French now.



PedanticTurkey said:


> ...and were the smallest of the three major nations that combined to defeat Napoleon at Waterloo...


The British Army usually punches well above it's weight.



PedanticTurkey said:


> ...There's just no way you can spin it that the UK was a major land power of the day, because it wasn't...


Please define "major land power", and then tell me how your definition is relevant.



PedanticTurkey said:


> ...No one, and I mean _no one_, who has honestly looked at the evidence (not to mention the plain text of the amendment, sheesh!) would disagree with this. It's plain English...


So, you dont think we need a Supreme Court to interpret the meaning and relevance of laws? If you don't, then who do you think should?



PedanticTurkey said:


> ...The main reason that I want to keep my gun is because it's _my f'in gun_. Not your gun. My gun. If the 2nd amendment isn't enough for you, what about the 5th amendment? Sheesh!


There is no need to get huffy, old chap. So,do you also think that the state should have no say whatsoever in what property someone should be able to own?


----------



## Laxplayer

PedanticTurkey said:


> *The fact is that if we could muster 30 million armed and trained men, it doesn't matter if they're up to the level of a professional army, because no one could possibly screw with us.*
> 
> I think we know that's not true.
> 
> *An m-16 costs, what, $400? It'd be a lot cheaper, too, if you were building 30,000,000 them. But just assume $400-- that's $12 billion. Maybe we cut cut half the pork off the next appropriations bill and easily provide every military-age man in the country with a rifle. I know you're probably upset with the idea of some Democrat-congressman's buddy losing $75,000,000 for "peanut storage," but it's a small sacrifice.*
> 
> No, they weren't. People in the South not only had more opportunities to shoot just by virtue of where they lived, but they also had a fear of, uh, how should I say it-- civil unrest-- that wasn't present in the North. That kept the Southern militias from degenerating into marching bands like they did in the North.


This has to be the dumbest post I have ever read on any forum. That's just what we need, 30 million people with M-16s. btw, just how are you going to raise this "army" of yours?


----------



## globetrotter

> The main reason that I want to keep my gun is because it's my f'in gun. Not your gun. My gun. If the 2nd amendment isn't enough for you, what about the 5th amendment? Sheesh!


this is what it comes down to, really.

there are a handfull of reasons to want guns. lets look at a few.

1. hunting, pretty good reason.

2.you need to be armed to carry out your job, pretty good reason.

3. to defend yourself, your property and your family. pretty good reason, but I don't think that most gun owners that use this excuse really do what it takes to be prepared to really do this. many do, certainly, but many, and probrably most, don't. not that they need me to say that, but I feel very confidant the many of the people here have in fact put in that effort.

4. to defend the country against invasion or dictatorship. again, good reason, but I don't see people taking this seriously, this is just an excuse. if you said to me "I have a few rifles, but 20 of my friends and I went in together and got an 81 mm mortar and a milan rocket launcher and a half dozen radio sets and we practice for a few weeks every summer to be ready for an invastion" then I would believe that you take this seriously.

that is why the whole argument about militias is relevant. gun nuts have convinced themselves that the fact that they keep a couple of handguns and a shotgun around the house means that they are fufulling the founders idea and that they are ready to repel an army of invaders.

5. you think guns are cool and you like to own a lot of guns - and that is what it comes down to, everything else is an excuse.

anyway, I am off on a flight.


----------

