On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:41:57 GMT, Richard Lamb
wrote:



Don Foreman wrote:

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.



some snippage


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.

You don't need a carry permit to keep a gun at home.(Texas)
You do need one to have a piece on your person in public.

In the car is a gray area.
Locked up in a case in the trunk and can't find the key is one thing.
Loaded, stuffed under the seat is a whole nother
(better have the permit).

The premit itself insures a certain level of compitence, since it has
to be renewed perodically.

As a side, IMHO, the M1911 is a fine combat piece, but would not
be on my short list for personal carry. To big, too bulky, loo loud(!).

That one would stay at home.

An effective hand gun is unlikely to be comfortable. Just comforting.

Jeff Cooper

Gunner

"I think this is because of your belief in biological Marxism.
As a genetic communist you feel that noticing behavioural
patterns relating to race would cause a conflict with your belief
in biological Marxism." Big Pete, famous Usenet Racist