On 28 Apr 2006 08:49:44 -0700, "rigger" wrote:

Don Foreman wrote:
On 27 Apr 2006 10:00:29 -0700, "rigger" wrote:


Don Foreman wrote:
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.

Well Don, you're a smart fella ok, but:

A cop's job is to protect us and to stop lawbreakers, using such force
as is necessary.

tells me you haven't thought this through. I'd suggest you don't hold
your breath while you wait for the police to "protect" you in
situations where a civilian shootout (with yourself involved) is about
to happen. The police have made it very clear this is NOT their
responsibility and that they bear no legal onus for not doing so.
Their job and responsibility is to investigate the crime and to
apprehend the perp.

If this type of situation should arise it's YOUR responsibility to
protect yourself and your loved ones either at home or in public. You
can not and should not depend on police for personal protection.

dennis
in nca

Perhaps nca cops cop out as you say. Legal onus or not, the cops in
these parts do seem to take the "protect and serve" logo painted on
the cop cars seriously, and my observation has been that they're good
at it. I was quite impressed with the quiet tactics of cops that
appeared in my back yard within 2 minutes of a 911 call reporting an
intruder. No flashing lights or sirens, just figures materializing
in the near-dark, some with flashlights and some more stealthy. I
saw good tactics in the nautical twilight. They collected the guy and
transported him away.

I may be fortunate to live in a blue-collar community where the cops
do seem to want to do the job and are obviously competent, YMMV.
Triage always applies.

Sorry Don, I guess I didn't make my statement clear enough. Please
allow me to restate:

It's been legally affirmed (not just in nca but around the country)
that if you, or a family member, is injured by a criminal in an
assault, you have no legal recourse against the police for not
protecting you. The cites are there if you need to look them up.

This means, since the police can not be at your elbow 24 hours a day,
that the responsibility for your personal protection belongs to you.
If you wish to be unarmed and trust in a criminal to do "the right
thing" and only rob and not further harm you or yours that is your
right. On the other hand a crime was just described on TV where, after
being robbed, the victims were killed to provide a "kick" for the
killer. Maybe you would be the lucky one? Maybe you don't believe
there are actually people out there who would do such a thing (and
similar ugly acts) to you or your family? If so please shake the sand
out of your ears and look around.

dennis
in nca

That does clarify things. It is certainly true that the cops can't be
everywhere at once, and I agree that bad things don't just happen on
TV. There have been a couple of incidents in Minneapolis in the
past few weeks where the victims were innocents -- not gangstas.

My original point was not to either encourage or discourage folks from
being armed. That's a personal choice, pick yer pony and take yer
ride. My point is that I feel strongly that those who do choose to
be armed should have and maintain enough training and proficiency to
have and use arms legally, safely, responsibly, and effectively if
necessary. The likelihood of a prolonged "shootout" (and collateral
casualties) is greatly reduced when at least one participant has some
degree of proficiency.

I am a military veteran. My assigned weapon 40 years ago was the
M1911 .45 pistol -- but that was 40 years ago. Were I to choose to
be armed now, I would get some good training and I would figure on
500 to 1000 rounds of practice for openers. Good training is
probably easier to find in some areas than others. It is very easy to
find in Minnesota, just ask at any gunshop including the bigbox
sportinggoods stores. In MN, taking and passing a certified
training course including a proficiency test (50 rounds) is required
for issue of a carry permit. Most of us don't need a carry permit,
but I think anyone who would keep a handgun needs the training and
the proficiency.