On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:31:56 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:07:49 -0500, 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.


All true. Now about the criminals that put the citizen into a gun
fight....

Knowledge of fire fighting techniques are wasted on civilians as they
should never need them. Best they should have..is the knowlege to
safely operate a garden hose.

Gunnr

Cute, Gunner.

I did not say or imply that civilians should not be knowledgable or
proficient. Quite the contrary. Look above to the paragraph that
starts with "I support....."

A respected person very well-versed in the matter of armed defense
once told me he spent 3 days training his parents from ground zero
with firearms. That's 3 days per parent, this after their jewelry
store was robbed at gunpoint. Not 6 hours, 3 days. Each. That
respected person must have seen some value in training.

If I recall the story correctly, these parents became proficient and
frequent shooters, and later stopped another robbery attempt -- with
no shots fired.

Most folks don't have access to anything like that kind of excellent
free coaching -- but training is available and, while not legally
mandated for ownership I assert that it is irresponsible to own a
firearm (or an automobile) without enough training to become safely
proficient in its use.