On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:04:54 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:35:58 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Gunfights are for cops and soldiers, not civilians.


Tell that to the criminals that put you in a gun fight.

Sigh.

The difference is that cops (even if hired hep) and soldiers are
expected to confront and enagage as a matter of sworn duty. A
soldier's job is to kill the enemy. A cop's job is to protect us and
to stop lawbreakers, using such force as is necessary. Civilians are
legally prohibited from taking armed initiative; they may only
defend themselves against clear and present grave mortal danger. I
differentiate cops from civilians only because cops have slightly
different rules of engagement e.g. they may fire to protect others.

A civilian who might find himself in a situation where avoidance of
such a situation is not possible should be proficient enough to
have some chance of surviving it without injuring non-participants.
Simply owning a gun is not nearly enough.

I don't recall if one of your rules for gunfights was to avoid them
when at all possible, but I'm pretty sure one of them was something
like: "if it can't be avoided, get it over with as quickly as
possible."

One good way to avoid finding oneself in such a situation is to avoid
venues where that is likely. Some can't do that because of where they
live or work, but most of us can most of the time.

I support the notion that civilians should retain the right to be
armed if they choose to be. I think advocates could do a lot better
job of pointing out that choosing to be armed carries the
responsibility of gaining and maintaining proficiency, responsible
safety practice, and knowledge of applicable law.