"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Kirk..Ive spent a live time avoiding Bad Things. Car accidents, food
poisoning, redheaded women G, heavy objects moving in my direction.

Well, we share three out of four. My wife is a redhead, I've been in a
couple of nasty car accidents, and I almost died from salmonella. Nothing
really heavy has fallen on me, but I barely got my legs out from under a
Clausing lathe that fell over when we were moving it. g

Ed Huntress

Kirk..Ive spent a live time avoiding Bad Things.
Car accidents, food poisoning, redheaded women

Hey, my wife is a redhead, and for that reason, every time I see a redhead,
my heart leaps. I get home and say "Sweetie, I saw another redhead today.
She was darned beautiful..." This is our code for something along the lines
of 'let's put the kids to bed early this evening...' What a gal.

"Steve" wrote in message
news:t6nbb.542022$uu5.90316@sccrnsc04...
Most of your post discussed carrying a weapon out
in the world. Because of your hobby you probably
have a number of weapons of various types in your
house or shop.
Do you consider any of them to be of value in protecting
your home or family, and if so, what type in particular?


The only gun I don't keep in my safe is my old Remington 870 with a 20"
slug
barrel, which sits in the back of my bedroom closet. I don't keep it there
with the expectation that I will need to use it, but rather because it
involves no comparative inconvenience to do so, and yes I sleep like a
baby.
I choose this gun for 3 reasons: 1) I have so many hours behind it I know
I
can hit something with it; 2) it has real firepower without the prospect
of
killing the neighbors; and, 2) If I thought I had a burglar, I expect that
the distinctive "schlack-schlack!" of a round being chambered,

I've heard this all my life but I really have my doubts, I'd hate for
someone to sit secure in the house thinking that the mere racking of the
slide will end a confrontation. These days a lot of criminal activity is
drug driven, and a guy on meth can void a lot of truisms, that would apply
to normally funcioning people. Like the guy in Phoenix a few years ago that
put his 2 or 3 year old daughter in the car told her they were going to look
at X-mas lights. Instead he stopped on a stretch of road, poured gasoline on
her and set her afire, then drove off. Granted that is an extreme example,
but this is the kind of behavior you sometimes run into. The rack of a pump
shotgun would have little or no effect on that dude.
I know this is only anecdotal evidence, but I have racked my wifes Mossberg
590 two times with no effect whatsoever. I wasn't counting on it too, so it
wasn't a problem. Real drunk, or real high or real motivated criminals don't
react like normal folks.

JTMcC.


accompanied
by me shouting "If I find you I'm going to kill you!" would probably be
enough to convince them to retreat.

Personally I don't want them to retreat, I don't want them to know where I
am either. A serious threat, that runs away, is still a serious threat, that
may come back, tonight or next week. Just my take.

JTMcC.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:28:04 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
Rules of Gunfighting

I'm surely wasting my time here; but...

KG

Once again you've shown that your best words are reserved for the
practical advancement of CNC Machining.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:10:15 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote:

All true. All reasonable. All agreable to me. But my basic
premise was that you would NOT be safer if everyone had the same skills
as you have. (The same discipline might be a good thing. Or the same
kind of focus and energy. But not just the capacity to do violence.)
If everyone DID have the same skills, then you'd be no better off than
someone without skills, fighting another just like him.

Or, if someone who wanted to threaten you could somehow grow another
arm, or a bigger fist, or otherwise up the ante and gain advantage, then
your abilities would still not protect you.

That's the trouble with guns. The capacity to kill is too easy to
acquire. If it took years of training just to pull a trigger
successfully, then I wouldn't be nearly as concerned. Your own choice
of defense strategies is, by nature, less likely to fall into the hands
of any fool who gets angry. And, of course, you can't grow an extra
arm. The basics of human anatomy define the limits to which any
hand-to-hand combat can be escalated. Not so with firearms. If your
opponent has a hand gun, you get a rifle. If he has a rifle, you get
something automatic. And so on. And so on. Forever.

I respect what you're saying. Completely. But I don't think it's a
good analogy for the problem/question of owning and using firearms.

KG

Everyone should be prepared for eventualities, some of them remote.
If you decide that you will exercise your right of self defense you
should at least have some idea of how you will respond if attacked.
Such thinking is the jump start you may need if and when the time ever
comes, it is not indicative of foolishness, and will not of itself
bring on conflict.
Gunners posting was meant to be humorous, and also there were some
important truths about conflict. Mainly that we should be better
prepared than any adversary when the time of conflict comes, I don't
think that is bad advice.

In article , Jack Erbes wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 02:06:07 GMT, "Steve" wrote:

Thank you. Just as a data point, do you keep it loaded, and
do you keep a round chambered? Do you prefer a shot load
or a slug load?

Nothing in chamber, 3 rounds in the magazine, basic dove & quail, nothing
that would go very far.

I consider that to be the perfect way to store a pump shotgun. And,
I'll add, with the bolt all the way home on an empty chamber and the
safety off.
.....
And the dove and quail loads are perfect for inside the home.
Overspray can be repaired with spackle. If I chamber three rounds,
sometimes I'll load a 00 buck round as the first round in the magazine
(last round out). I figure the first one or two will do the work and
if I have to finish up outside the house the buck will give some extra
range.

Spackle, overspray? Jack, i think this is what the long winded dude
was talking about. grin --Loren




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Like the guy in Phoenix a few years ago that put his 2 or 3
year old daughter in the car told her they were going to look
at X-mas lights. Instead he stopped on a stretch of road,
poured gasoline on her and set her afire, then drove off.
Granted that is an extreme example, but this is the kind of
behavior you sometimes run into. The rack of a pump shotgun
would have little or no effect on that dude.

Well, after the "schlack-schlack!" there's always Plan B......

Glen wrote:

Everyone should be prepared for eventualities, some of them remote.
If you decide that you will exercise your right of self defense you
should at least have some idea of how you will respond if attacked.
Such thinking is the jump start you may need if and when the time ever
comes, it is not indicative of foolishness, and will not of itself
bring on conflict.
Gunners posting was meant to be humorous, and also there were some
important truths about conflict. Mainly that we should be better
prepared than any adversary when the time of conflict comes, I don't
think that is bad advice.


Ok. OK! I've been beat up enough. I KNEW I was wasting my time.

I didn't see the humor in what Gunner posted. It sounded an awful
lot like other things I've heard from people who were absolutely sincere
and serious. Maybe I was just in the wrong mood.

The part about being prepared to protect oneself is sorta
interesting, though. There's a not-quite-explicit undertone in all of
the responses to my post which seems to assume that I've never been in
danger, never dealt with violence, and that I live some sort of charmed
life which affords me the luxury of pretending that self-defense isn't
necessary or important. People who have faced danger, and who have
found a way to deal with it, sometimes appear to believe that thier's is
the only way, and that anyone who chooses differently must necessarily
do so out of ignorance.

If someone is REALLY concerned about being "prepared for
eventualities, some of them remote", then doesn't he or she sorta NEED
the capacity to keep an open mind, and to recognize, habitually and
automatically, that things aren't always what they seem, and aren't
always as simple as they seem?

If a gun is a good and important way to protect oneself, then why is
it that several of the pro-gun members of this group are also
accomplished martial artists? Doesn't that mean that there are times
when a gun isn't the best defense? Doesn't it mean that there are
sometimes alternatives about the best kind of protection? If so, then
why the almost universal assumption that alternatives aren't available
to ME, or that I've never had any reason even to consider the questions?

I'd LOVE to live a charmed life, untouched by hazzards and hardship;
but it's never happened. I grew up in NorthWest Detroit, in places
where, even 40 years ago, the cops never traveled alone. I paid part of
my way through college by working the midnight to 8 AM shift, alone, at
an all night gas station. I attended Wayne State University, right in
the center of center city Detroit, where crime and violence were more
common than I'd really care to remember. I worked for years in little
machine shops in places that had fenced parking lots with barbed wire,
and where it was considered foolish to enter or leave the building alone.

And I survived all that without keeping my guard up at all times,
and without slinking around, trying to be invisible, and hoping trouble
would never find me. I used to have drinks with friends after work, in
places where the only things white were me and the cue ball. (That's
not in any way a racist statement, or an attempt to imply that black is
scary or dangerous; but Detroit in the 1970's was a tense and nervous
place. Race relations, even at the personal level, were NEVER simple or
trouble free.) I bought snacks at lunchtime at a little place where I
literally had to step over the junkies passed out on the sidewalk. For
a while, I lived where I could walk to work, when I didn't have money
for a car. The walk was about a mile, down one street that was run by
an Italian gang of thugs, and another that was home to a Polish gang.
I'm neither Italian nor Polish, and I didn't belong on either street;
but I got where I was going anyway - every single day.

Now, I'll admit that I've never been in the military, never
knowingly killed anyone, and never done things like police work that
involved volunary acceptance of danger; but that doesn't mean I've never
lived in the real world. And, I've survived the real world - or as much
of it as I've been able to experience - on my own terms, without a gun,
and without ever feeling the need to walk around with my head down, or
my guard up, except in very rare situations that are pretty easy to
anticipate and avoid.

And, I don't consider myself to be exceptional. LOTS of people live
like I do. Many have faced much greater danger, and had more serious
problems, without ever developing the need to arm themselves, or to view
the world as an inherently threatening place.

There are a couple of signature lines, used commonly by several
group members, which say, in effect, that someone who doesn't own guns
must necessarily be afraid of them; and must therefore be less than a
man, and some kind of sub-human coward. I resent that idea personally,
of course; but I also wonder if the people who believe such things
aren't confessing their OWN lack of knowledge and experience. A friend
of mine, when I was much younger, did three tours of duty in the Navy
during the Viet Nam war - not on an aircraft carrier off the coast
somewhere; but in a plastic patrol boat on the Mekong river. He came
home with a whole box full of medals, including two purple hearts, and
with an absolutely unshakable dislike for firearms of any kind.

Now, you can believe what you like about me. That doesn't matter
much one way or another. But if you really think that someone who
doesn't like guns is either ignorant or a coward, then how do you
explain my friend, who was defintely neither of those things? Could it
be that your OWN experience is too limited to include such people.

It's one thing to keep your eyes and ears open, and to understand
that the world CAN be dangerous, at times. But it's quite another thing
to allow your whole life to be colored by the fear that danger lurks
around every corner, and that failure to be fully, constantly, overtly
prepared for it is proof of stupidity. Being alert and aware of your
surroundings doesn't just mean that you recognize danger in places where
other people can't. It should also mean that you recognize comfort, and
safety, and friendly faces, when you happen to encounter those.

If your view of the world is small enough, you probably CAN prepare
yourself to deal with it. And if you view your little world as
inherently hostile, then I guess that preparation just naturally
includes weapons. But the world - the real world - is a very big place;
and, if you're willing to face it without fear, it offers an endless
variety of things that you CAN'T anticipate, and CAN'T prepare for.
That's half the fun of being alive! Danger - at least the kind of
danger that a gun might protect you from - is not the world's dominant
feature. Open your eyes a little wider, broaden your horizons just a
bit, do some real, serious, open-minded versions of those 360
lookarounds, and you might find people and places that don't want to
harm you, and that you don't need to protect yourself from, and that
will welcome you into a whole new set of experiences that will actually
allow you to check your paranoia at the door.

Of course, they might also REQUIRE you to check your paranoia before
they let you in. And that can be a problem, if you're not brave enough
to face the world unarmed.

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.

Gunner wrote:



Kirk..most of your post, is fundamentally wrong or dishonest. Except
the parts about there being no rules, when the fecal material impacts
the impeller. There, you are 100% correct.

There are only those that survive, and those that dont.

Gunner


"

Gunner, That brings back great memories. My last gunfight was in '63.
We were all armed with Thompson .45 recoil operated machineguns,
made by that famous subcontractor, Mattel. I survived the battle but
there were those on the opposing side who insisted I hadn't.

Fred

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:17:48 -0400, Jack Erbes
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 02:06:07 GMT, "Steve" wrote:

Thank you. Just as a data point, do you keep it loaded, and
do you keep a round chambered? Do you prefer a shot load
or a slug load?

Nothing in chamber, 3 rounds in the magazine, basic dove & quail, nothing
that would go very far.

I consider that to be the perfect way to store a pump shotgun. And,
I'll add, with the bolt all the way home on an empty chamber and the
safety off.

To bring it into play, the first thing you have to do is press the
bolt release. That is under you thumb beside the trigger and it is
intuitive to you if you know the gun. It is a safety feature of sorts
if someone else picks up the gun.

Then you rack the bolt smartly and chamber a round. Your trigger
finger is, of course, straightened out and along side the trigger
guard, not on the trigger. Yet.

If you have an intruder, the sound of the bolt racking a round home
was his free warning and should provide all the inspiration he needs
to leave now.

And the dove and quail loads are perfect for inside the home.
Overspray can be repaired with spackle. If I chamber three rounds,
sometimes I'll load a 00 buck round as the first round in the magazine
(last round out). I figure the first one or two will do the work and
if I have to finish up outside the house the buck will give some extra
range.


Excellent post.

Gunner


"Anyone who cannot cope with firearms is not fully human. At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house."
With appologies to RAH..

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:45:39 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote:

Glen wrote:

Everyone should be prepared for eventualities, some of them remote.
If you decide that you will exercise your right of self defense you
should at least have some idea of how you will respond if attacked.
Such thinking is the jump start you may need if and when the time ever
comes, it is not indicative of foolishness, and will not of itself
bring on conflict.
Gunners posting was meant to be humorous, and also there were some
important truths about conflict. Mainly that we should be better
prepared than any adversary when the time of conflict comes, I don't
think that is bad advice.


Ok. OK! I've been beat up enough. I KNEW I was wasting my time.

I didn't see the humor in what Gunner posted. It sounded an awful
lot like other things I've heard from people who were absolutely sincere
and serious. Maybe I was just in the wrong mood.

No Kirk, you did make some valid points..but they were based on some
flawed basic assumptions:

The part about being prepared to protect oneself is sorta
interesting, though. There's a not-quite-explicit undertone in all of
the responses to my post which seems to assume that I've never been in
danger, never dealt with violence, and that I live some sort of charmed
life which affords me the luxury of pretending that self-defense isn't
necessary or important. People who have faced danger, and who have
found a way to deal with it, sometimes appear to believe that thier's is
the only way, and that anyone who chooses differently must necessarily
do so out of ignorance.

If you feel self defense is important..why the insisting its not?

If someone is REALLY concerned about being "prepared for
eventualities, some of them remote", then doesn't he or she sorta NEED
the capacity to keep an open mind, and to recognize, habitually and
automatically, that things aren't always what they seem, and aren't
always as simple as they seem?

Absoluty required to keep an open mind! Which is why wargaming is so
important.

If a gun is a good and important way to protect oneself, then why is
it that several of the pro-gun members of this group are also
accomplished martial artists? Doesn't that mean that there are times
when a gun isn't the best defense? Doesn't it mean that there are
sometimes alternatives about the best kind of protection? If so, then
why the almost universal assumption that alternatives aren't available
to ME, or that I've never had any reason even to consider the questions?

Firearms ARE a martial arts. As is Iscrima Silat (knife and stick
fighting) Jodo (short staff fighting ..pool cue length G) etc etc
etc. All of which I practice, including some open handed arts. Each
have their place, as the weapon at hand is simply a tool. Some tools
are better than others, and some are more "universal" Cane fighting
is a fast growing art that is becoming popular with our aging
population ( search CaneMaster). Firearms are the one tool that
everyone can learn, in a reasonably short amount of time. Be it a
strapping 25yr old Marine, or his 85 yr old grandmother. It is NOT the
universal art, but its versitility is very large, particularly when
there is any distance involved past arms length. One should recall
Bruce Lee, when asked what he would do when confronted by a robber
with a gun..his response was "give him my money".

Firearms Are NOT the end all and be all, and in many situations are
not indicated. If the 14 yr old neighbor kid is knocking around your
8yr old daughter, its not considered proper to cap his ass. If a
rapist enters your grandmothers bedroom at 3am, its not expected that
Granny will give him a shoto hand strike to the wind and rupture his
aorta.

A firearm is JUST a tool. Period. It has NO intrinsic good, nor any
intrinsic good. Its just a tool. But a handy tool for certain
situations.A firearm, is the most compact of distance martial arts
weapons.
A fiream is used, not just presented, but actually discharged as a
last resort. In MOST cases, the simple presentation of a firearm is
enough to break off the attack, or cause the perp to seek other
climes. But if the situation escalates..one had best be prepared, both
mentally and physicaly to use that option of last resort, and in the
most effective manner, and in a manner most advantagous to you and the
disadvantage of the bad guy. There are no rules (just some suggestions
for staying alive) in a deadly force situation. The idea is to stay
alive, and Secondly, to stop the bad guys actions. If this involves
dropping to the ground and scurrying behind a parked car, and shooting
him in the ankle..DO IT! Ever notice all the TV shootemups where they
trade shots over the hood of a car? Hollywood. Shoot under the car at
the guys legs/feet and when he drops, shoot him in the head.

Knives..any practicioner of edged weapon arts, will tell you that the
winner of a knife fight is the guy in the ambulence. The looser gets
the chalk outline. Knives are handy for other things as well. So are
telephones, but you can bonk somebody in the skull with one.

Do you limit your tool box to only a hammer? Ever try to drive a nail
with a tuning tool? Aint happening. Ever try to tune a servo amp with
a hammer? See above.

Self defense is YOUR responsibilty, and having more than one tool in
your box, makes good sense. But some folks, like our Granny, have a
hell of a lot less choices than others.



I'd LOVE to live a charmed life, untouched by hazzards and hardship;
but it's never happened. I grew up in NorthWest Detroit, in places
where, even 40 years ago, the cops never traveled alone. I paid part of
my way through college by working the midnight to 8 AM shift, alone, at
an all night gas station. I attended Wayne State University, right in
the center of center city Detroit, where crime and violence were more
common than I'd really care to remember. I worked for years in little
machine shops in places that had fenced parking lots with barbed wire,
and where it was considered foolish to enter or leave the building alone.

Good for you.

And I survived all that without keeping my guard up at all times,
and without slinking around, trying to be invisible, and hoping trouble
would never find me.

Whom is advocating that? Not I!

I used to have drinks with friends after work, in
places where the only things white were me and the cue ball. (That's
not in any way a racist statement, or an attempt to imply that black is
scary or dangerous; but Detroit in the 1970's was a tense and nervous
place. Race relations, even at the personal level, were NEVER simple or
trouble free.) I bought snacks at lunchtime at a little place where I
literally had to step over the junkies passed out on the sidewalk. For
a while, I lived where I could walk to work, when I didn't have money
for a car. The walk was about a mile, down one street that was run by
an Italian gang of thugs, and another that was home to a Polish gang.
I'm neither Italian nor Polish, and I didn't belong on either street;
but I got where I was going anyway - every single day.

Good for you. I too grew up in Michigan, and spent an inordinate
amount of time in the Detroit environs. However..even in Detroit..it
was a kinder and gentler society in many regards.

Now, I'll admit that I've never been in the military, never
knowingly killed anyone, and never done things like police work that
involved volunary acceptance of danger; but that doesn't mean I've never
lived in the real world. And, I've survived the real world - or as much
of it as I've been able to experience - on my own terms, without a gun,
and without ever feeling the need to walk around with my head down, or
my guard up, except in very rare situations that are pretty easy to
anticipate and avoid.

Good for you, and may you continue to have no bad luck.

And, I don't consider myself to be exceptional. LOTS of people live
like I do. Many have faced much greater danger, and had more serious
problems, without ever developing the need to arm themselves, or to view
the world as an inherently threatening place.

How many traffic accidents have you had, and do you consider the
freeway a inherently threatening place?

There are a couple of signature lines, used commonly by several
group members, which say, in effect, that someone who doesn't own guns
must necessarily be afraid of them; and must therefore be less than a
man, and some kind of sub-human coward. I resent that idea personally,
of course; but I also wonder if the people who believe such things
aren't confessing their OWN lack of knowledge and experience. A friend
of mine, when I was much younger, did three tours of duty in the Navy
during the Viet Nam war - not on an aircraft carrier off the coast
somewhere; but in a plastic patrol boat on the Mekong river. He came
home with a whole box full of medals, including two purple hearts, and
with an absolutely unshakable dislike for firearms of any kind.

And I can speak for hundreds of folks whom visited the same place and
came away with an unshakeable belief in their personal responsiblity
to be able to defend themselves and their families. Myself included.
Lots of guys dont hunt, either, for the same reasons. I didnt for many
years.

Now, you can believe what you like about me. That doesn't matter
much one way or another. But if you really think that someone who
doesn't like guns is either ignorant or a coward, then how do you
explain my friend, who was defintely neither of those things? Could it
be that your OWN experience is too limited to include such people.

Chuckle..lots of guys came back from the Nam as drug addicts. Lots
came back and became preachers. Each of us handle our own personal
core beliefs in a different fashion. Such a River Rat/Brown Water Navy
guy occasionally posts on misc.survivalism. One of the nicest and most
knowledgeable fellows you would ever care to meet. Even tempered,
stable, witty, well spoken. And he still goes armed. One ancidote
doesnt make the rule.

It's one thing to keep your eyes and ears open, and to understand
that the world CAN be dangerous, at times. But it's quite another thing
to allow your whole life to be colored by the fear that danger lurks
around every corner, and that failure to be fully, constantly, overtly
prepared for it is proof of stupidity. Being alert and aware of your
surroundings doesn't just mean that you recognize danger in places where
other people can't. It should also mean that you recognize comfort, and
safety, and friendly faces, when you happen to encounter those.


No one is claiming that you should live your life in fear. Far From
IT!~ I suspect your biases color your thinking in this regard, based
on your posts. The goal is to recognize that life can be a hazardous
place, make certain preperations for bad moments and live life well
and fully. Too many of the people I know, whom dont believe in guns,
scuttle around like mice in a house full of cats.

If your view of the world is small enough, you probably CAN prepare
yourself to deal with it. And if you view your little world as
inherently hostile, then I guess that preparation just naturally
includes weapons. But the world - the real world - is a very big place;
and, if you're willing to face it without fear, it offers an endless
variety of things that you CAN'T anticipate, and CAN'T prepare for.
That's half the fun of being alive! Danger - at least the kind of
danger that a gun might protect you from - is not the world's dominant
feature. Open your eyes a little wider, broaden your horizons just a
bit, do some real, serious, open-minded versions of those 360
lookarounds, and you might find people and places that don't want to
harm you, and that you don't need to protect yourself from, and that
will welcome you into a whole new set of experiences that will actually
allow you to check your paranoia at the door.

Once again, you bring up the word fear. You over use it to attempt to
make your case. And as such, its useage by you is deeply flawed. When
you get into your automobile..do you Fear driving? Or are you fully
aware that Bad Things may happen in the next few miles and have
trained yourself to try to avoid them? Do you huddle behind the wheel,
quaking in your seat? Or does your head swivel constantly, mirrors,
windows, blind spot, controls again and again? Is that fear? Or simply
doing what needs to be done, to remain safe? Are you consiously doing
that? Or have you trained yourself for such that it has become
automatic?
Fear, in many cases, is healthy. It makes you do things that keep you
alive. Panic kills unrelentlessly. Ask any pilot. Fear is not
paranoia. Personally, when riding a motorcycle on the freeway in
traffic..Im the most paranoid son of a bitch on the road, because I
know someone out there will try to kill me sooner or later G

But you mentioned Color a number of times above..lets look at Color,
shall we? And lets see if it makes you live your live in huddled
paranoia:

http://home.sprynet.com/~frfrog/color.htm

I've been frequently asked about the Gunsite Color Code. Nowadays,
just about everyone is familiar with the "color code" used by the
government to indicate terrorist threat level. However, the color
code as originally introduced by Jeff Cooper, had nothing to do with
tactical situations or alertness levels, but rather with one's state
of mind. As taught by Jeff, it relates to the degree of peril you are
willing to do something about and which allows you to move from one
level of mindset to another to enable you to properly handle a given
situation.

A lethal confrontation is not something anyone expects, and this code
allows you to have a sequence you can work with to prepare you for
"something bad." Jeff doesn't claim to have invented anything in
particular with the color code, but he has definitely spread the word
about it.

The color code defines four different mental states. Why four?
Because three doesn't adequately cover the needed range and five
simply adds an unneeded level. The four colors used are white,
yellow, orange, and red.

Here it is straight from the famous "Wednesday lecture."


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

White - Relaxed, unaware, and unprepared. If attacked in this state
the only thing that may save you is the inadequacy and ineptitude of
your attacker. When confronted by something nasty your reaction will
probably be, "Oh my God! This can't be happening to me."

Yellow - Relaxed alert. No specific threat situation. Your mindset
is that "today could be the day I may have to defend myself." There
is no specific threat but you are aware that the world is an
unfriendly place and that you are prepared to do something if
necessary. You use your eyes and ears, and your carriage says "I am
alert." You don't have to be armed in this state but if you are
armed you must be in yellow. When confronted by something nasty your
reaction will probably be, "I thought this might happen some day."
You can live in this state indefinitely.

Orange - Specific alert. Something not quite right has gotten your
attention and you shift your primary focus to that thing. Something
is "wrong" with a person or object. Something may happen. Your
mindset is that "I may have to shoot that person." Your pistol is
usually holstered in this state. You can maintain this state for
several hours.

Red - Fight. This is your mental trigger. "If that person does "x" I
will shoot them." Your pistol may, but not necessarily, be in your
hand.
------------------------------------


Of course, they might also REQUIRE you to check your paranoia before
they let you in. And that can be a problem, if you're not brave enough
to face the world unarmed.

KG

Or if someone kills/maims/rapes/ you before you get there.

Your biases are showing, Kirk. The idea that you may someday be faced
with a Bad Thing, is considered paranoia?

Your tool box must be interesting.

Gunner


"Anyone who cannot cope with firearms is not fully human. At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house."
With appologies to RAH..

And lo, it came about, that on Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:14:14 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking , Gunner was inspired to utter:

Kirk..most of your post, is fundamentally wrong or dishonest. Except
the parts about there being no rules, when the fecal material impacts
the impeller. There, you are 100% correct.

"Of course it was a fair fight - I won."

There are only those that survive, and those that dont.

If after the smoke clears and the dust settles, you are able to join with
your SO and rut like lust crazed adolescent ferrets, then you had the right
gun, caliber, ammo, tactics, shoe size, training, doctrine, luck and God Was On
Your Side. This does not, of course, mean you couldn't have improved any.

I am reminded of a story of a person, watching videotape of herself in a
desperate melee, thinking her instructors would no doubt be full of critiques
on her form, style and choices. But she was alive, and that is what mattered.


tschus
pyotr



--
pyotr filipivich
The cliche is that history rarely repeats herself. Usually she just
lets fly with a frying pan and yells "Why weren't you listening
the first time!?"

And lo, it came about, that on Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:31:10 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking , "Ed Huntress" was inspired
to utter:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Kirk..Ive spent a live time avoiding Bad Things. Car accidents, food
poisoning, redheaded women G, heavy objects moving in my direction.

Well, we share three out of four. My wife is a redhead, I've been in a
couple of nasty car accidents, and I almost died from salmonella. Nothing
really heavy has fallen on me, but I barely got my legs out from under a
Clausing lathe that fell over when we were moving it. g

dang. I'm four for four. ladyfriend is a Redhead, and does having a bus
fall off the jack while you are under it count?


--
pyotr filipivich
The cliche is that history rarely repeats herself. Usually she just
lets fly with a frying pan and yells "Why weren't you listening
the first time!?"

In article , JTMcC says...

That is entirely correct, but if you are expecting our criminal to flee in
fear of the shotgun that now has a round chambered, you are likely to be
suprised by the speed, intensity and violence of the attack by our not
intimidated intruder, especially if the encounter is, as most homeowner
defense type situations are, at very close range.

Well then that raises the next question on my mind.
What is better for this situation, a full stock on
a shotgun, or a pistol-grip?

Any comments from those in the know?

Thanks - Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:45:39 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote:

Glen wrote:

Everyone should be prepared for eventualities, some of them remote.
If you decide that you will exercise your right of self defense you
should at least have some idea of how you will respond if attacked.
Such thinking is the jump start you may need if and when the time ever
comes, it is not indicative of foolishness, and will not of itself
bring on conflict.
Gunners posting was meant to be humorous, and also there were some
important truths about conflict. Mainly that we should be better
prepared than any adversary when the time of conflict comes, I don't
think that is bad advice.


Ok. OK! I've been beat up enough. I KNEW I was wasting my time.

I didn't see the humor in what Gunner posted. It sounded an awful
lot like other things I've heard from people who were absolutely sincere
and serious. Maybe I was just in the wrong mood.

The part about being prepared to protect oneself is sorta
interesting, though. There's a not-quite-explicit undertone in all of
the responses to my post which seems to assume that I've never been in
danger, never dealt with violence, and that I live some sort of charmed
life which affords me the luxury of pretending that self-defense isn't
necessary or important. People who have faced danger, and who have
found a way to deal with it, sometimes appear to believe that thier's is
the only way, and that anyone who chooses differently must necessarily
do so out of ignorance.

If someone is REALLY concerned about being "prepared for
eventualities, some of them remote", then doesn't he or she sorta NEED
the capacity to keep an open mind, and to recognize, habitually and
automatically, that things aren't always what they seem, and aren't
always as simple as they seem?

If a gun is a good and important way to protect oneself, then why is
it that several of the pro-gun members of this group are also
accomplished martial artists? Doesn't that mean that there are times
when a gun isn't the best defense? Doesn't it mean that there are
sometimes alternatives about the best kind of protection? If so, then
why the almost universal assumption that alternatives aren't available
to ME, or that I've never had any reason even to consider the questions?

I'd LOVE to live a charmed life, untouched by hazzards and hardship;
but it's never happened. I grew up in NorthWest Detroit, in places
where, even 40 years ago, the cops never traveled alone. I paid part of
my way through college by working the midnight to 8 AM shift, alone, at
an all night gas station. I attended Wayne State University, right in
the center of center city Detroit, where crime and violence were more
common than I'd really care to remember. I worked for years in little
machine shops in places that had fenced parking lots with barbed wire,
and where it was considered foolish to enter or leave the building alone.

And I survived all that without keeping my guard up at all times,
and without slinking around, trying to be invisible, and hoping trouble
would never find me. I used to have drinks with friends after work, in
places where the only things white were me and the cue ball. (That's
not in any way a racist statement, or an attempt to imply that black is
scary or dangerous; but Detroit in the 1970's was a tense and nervous
place. Race relations, even at the personal level, were NEVER simple or
trouble free.) I bought snacks at lunchtime at a little place where I
literally had to step over the junkies passed out on the sidewalk. For
a while, I lived where I could walk to work, when I didn't have money
for a car. The walk was about a mile, down one street that was run by
an Italian gang of thugs, and another that was home to a Polish gang.
I'm neither Italian nor Polish, and I didn't belong on either street;
but I got where I was going anyway - every single day.

Now, I'll admit that I've never been in the military, never
knowingly killed anyone, and never done things like police work that
involved volunary acceptance of danger; but that doesn't mean I've never
lived in the real world. And, I've survived the real world - or as much
of it as I've been able to experience - on my own terms, without a gun,
and without ever feeling the need to walk around with my head down, or
my guard up, except in very rare situations that are pretty easy to
anticipate and avoid.

And, I don't consider myself to be exceptional. LOTS of people live
like I do. Many have faced much greater danger, and had more serious
problems, without ever developing the need to arm themselves, or to view
the world as an inherently threatening place.

There are a couple of signature lines, used commonly by several
group members, which say, in effect, that someone who doesn't own guns
must necessarily be afraid of them; and must therefore be less than a
man, and some kind of sub-human coward. I resent that idea personally,
of course; but I also wonder if the people who believe such things
aren't confessing their OWN lack of knowledge and experience. A friend
of mine, when I was much younger, did three tours of duty in the Navy
during the Viet Nam war - not on an aircraft carrier off the coast
somewhere; but in a plastic patrol boat on the Mekong river. He came
home with a whole box full of medals, including two purple hearts, and
with an absolutely unshakable dislike for firearms of any kind.

Now, you can believe what you like about me. That doesn't matter
much one way or another. But if you really think that someone who
doesn't like guns is either ignorant or a coward, then how do you
explain my friend, who was defintely neither of those things? Could it
be that your OWN experience is too limited to include such people.

It's one thing to keep your eyes and ears open, and to understand
that the world CAN be dangerous, at times. But it's quite another thing
to allow your whole life to be colored by the fear that danger lurks
around every corner, and that failure to be fully, constantly, overtly
prepared for it is proof of stupidity. Being alert and aware of your
surroundings doesn't just mean that you recognize danger in places where
other people can't. It should also mean that you recognize comfort, and
safety, and friendly faces, when you happen to encounter those.

If your view of the world is small enough, you probably CAN prepare
yourself to deal with it. And if you view your little world as
inherently hostile, then I guess that preparation just naturally
includes weapons. But the world - the real world - is a very big place;
and, if you're willing to face it without fear, it offers an endless
variety of things that you CAN'T anticipate, and CAN'T prepare for.
That's half the fun of being alive! Danger - at least the kind of
danger that a gun might protect you from - is not the world's dominant
feature. Open your eyes a little wider, broaden your horizons just a
bit, do some real, serious, open-minded versions of those 360
lookarounds, and you might find people and places that don't want to
harm you, and that you don't need to protect yourself from, and that
will welcome you into a whole new set of experiences that will actually
allow you to check your paranoia at the door.

Of course, they might also REQUIRE you to check your paranoia before
they let you in. And that can be a problem, if you're not brave enough
to face the world unarmed.

KG

Bet your good at talking your way out of things. I've read both of
your long posts and still don't get your point. As to Gunner's sig. ,
I've never seen anything wrong with that one. I can only guess why
some people don't have guns or like them , like timid people that are
afraid to drive on the highway wouldn't likely own one.

The other week I ran into a problem and won't tell , but I was
flustered afterwards on how many levels one should be prepared for in
this brave new world. I had missed some options , but was trying to
figure out how to stop it without getting into legal trouble. You
know like forgetting the chain saw right in the back of the truck type
of thing or the brick hammer and then where to hit 'em .

I think your just plain lucky. There are bad people out there , trust
me. For example, if you were way in the middle of nowhere and a
bigger and faster truck shows up and wants you , your truck , your $ ,
and your girl , are you gonna talk your way out of it?

To each their own , but I want to at least die fighting , instead of
submitting to their values. I think its just fine that people live
without guns , not me though . Maybe the services have toned it down
enough for some to feel that way.

"Kirk Gordon" wrote in message
...

Ok. OK! I've been beat up enough. I KNEW I was wasting my time.

Aint nobody beatin nobody else up Kirk. Some folks just feel strongly bout
this issue as do they with most all other OT threads. Aint no biggie. And ya
aint wastin yer time either.

The part about being prepared to protect oneself is sorta
interesting, though. There's a not-quite-explicit undertone in all of
the responses to my post which seems to assume that I've never been in
danger, never dealt with violence, and that I live some sort of charmed
life which affords me the luxury of pretending that self-defense isn't
necessary or important. People who have faced danger, and who have
found a way to deal with it, sometimes appear to believe that thier's is
the only way, and that anyone who chooses differently must necessarily
do so out of ignorance.

Its not really dealing with danger. Its about assuming a mentality that
danger might find you. Bout being prepared and such. Its actually pretty
good training to hope that nothing bad will ever happen to ya but to realize
that it may. The problem is what that *may* might be.

Everybody has every right to live their lives in security and peace. The
problem arises when we do not think about all the nutzo's in the world and
how they operate. We dont have to make elaborate plans for everthing that
the jerks will try, but to at least acknowledge that there are some sick ass
people out there is a good start at defending yerself if need be. Hopefully
that will be never.

If someone is REALLY concerned about being "prepared for
eventualities, some of them remote", then doesn't he or she sorta NEED
the capacity to keep an open mind, and to recognize, habitually and
automatically, that things aren't always what they seem, and aren't
always as simple as they seem?

Exactly. But what cha gonna do when Rod Serling steps in and says this is
the Twighlight Zone?
You cant be prepared for everything. Even a top notch soldier or martial
artist will tell you that. All that training and you can choke at the last
minute. But for those times that you are prepared it comes in pretty handy.

If a gun is a good and important way to protect oneself, then why is
it that several of the pro-gun members of this group are also
accomplished martial artists? Doesn't that mean that there are times
when a gun isn't the best defense? Doesn't it mean that there are
sometimes alternatives about the best kind of protection? If so, then
why the almost universal assumption that alternatives aren't available
to ME, or that I've never had any reason even to consider the questions?

I never said I was an accomplished martial artist. Aint no Jackie Chan goin
on here. No true martial artist will tell you that they can overcome any
situation. If they do then they are lying to you. Same thing with Mr Gun
Toter. Its nothing more than a tool. Something to be learned but not used
unless you explicitly have ta. Same as yer body.

I'd LOVE to live a charmed life, untouched by hazzards and hardship;
but it's never happened. I grew up in NorthWest Detroit, in places
where, even 40 years ago, the cops never traveled alone. I paid part of
my way through college by working the midnight to 8 AM shift, alone, at
an all night gas station. I attended Wayne State University, right in
the center of center city Detroit, where crime and violence were more
common than I'd really care to remember. I worked for years in little
machine shops in places that had fenced parking lots with barbed wire,
and where it was considered foolish to enter or leave the building alone.

And all that time you never thought abut anything bad that could of happened
to you?

Now, I'll admit that I've never been in the military, never
knowingly killed anyone, and never done things like police work that
involved volunary acceptance of danger; but that doesn't mean I've never
lived in the real world. And, I've survived the real world - or as much
of it as I've been able to experience - on my own terms, without a gun,
and without ever feeling the need to walk around with my head down, or
my guard up, except in very rare situations that are pretty easy to
anticipate and avoid.

Can I interject a story? When I was younger, me and my bandmates went to the
7-11 to get us siome grub. Like 2am.
I didnt have a gun nor a knife. really didnt need one. We bought soup.
Heated it up and walked outside with the bowls burning our fingers. Only a
couple of blocks to my house. *pad*.. Not really a bad part of town either.
Well, seems we were accosted by 4 teens. Big guys too. I probably made a
mistake in taking some initiative while they were trying to cop money off my
friends and threw my soup in ther faces. But oh well. One had a knife that I
could see and I wasnt waitin around for the cut. The others took notice and
did the same. Talk about screaming! Never heard people scream so bad in my
life. Hot soup in their faces, oh yea! I still hear them screaming. I didnt
like having to do that. I'm sure they didnt like it either.

Now, was I wrong in defending myself? Especially with a bowl of soup? Or
were they wrong in screwing with me?

And, I don't consider myself to be exceptional. LOTS of people live
like I do. Many have faced much greater danger, and had more serious
problems, without ever developing the need to arm themselves, or to view
the world as an inherently threatening place.

But the world is not the Utopian idealogy that you grew up in Thomas. Its
not all that nice out there anymore.I wish it were different but it aint. I
dont view the whole world as a threatening place. But, I am going to go on
like I always have. Be aware and know what yer limitations are. In most
cases its better just to cut and run, but that dont happen all that
frequently.

There are a couple of signature lines, used commonly by several
group members, which say, in effect, that someone who doesn't own guns
must necessarily be afraid of them; and must therefore be less than a
man, and some kind of sub-human coward. I resent that idea personally,
of course; but I also wonder if the people who believe such things
aren't confessing their OWN lack of knowledge and experience. A friend
of mine, when I was much younger, did three tours of duty in the Navy
during the Viet Nam war - not on an aircraft carrier off the coast
somewhere; but in a plastic patrol boat on the Mekong river. He came
home with a whole box full of medals, including two purple hearts, and
with an absolutely unshakable dislike for firearms of any kind.

And I also know a guy that would go back in a hearbeat. Notice I have no
sigs.
I really dont think there is anybody on this ng that enjoys killing people
or beating the hell outa them.
For the most part people try to avoid those situations if they can.

Now, you can believe what you like about me. That doesn't matter
much one way or another. But if you really think that someone who
doesn't like guns is either ignorant or a coward, then how do you
explain my friend, who was defintely neither of those things? Could it
be that your OWN experience is too limited to include such people.

Yer friend saw something in himself after he got out. Thats a great
testimony to why war is hell. But while he was in, doing his duty, how many
did he kill?

It's one thing to keep your eyes and ears open, and to understand
that the world CAN be dangerous, at times. But it's quite another thing
to allow your whole life to be colored by the fear that danger lurks
around every corner, and that failure to be fully, constantly, overtly
prepared for it is proof of stupidity. Being alert and aware of your
surroundings doesn't just mean that you recognize danger in places where
other people can't. It should also mean that you recognize comfort, and
safety, and friendly faces, when you happen to encounter those.

Being prepared doesnt mean that yer life is full of fear. Actually it makes
you more aware of the friendly people out there.

If your view of the world is small enough, you probably CAN prepare
yourself to deal with it. And if you view your little world as
inherently hostile, then I guess that preparation just naturally
includes weapons. But the world - the real world - is a very big place;
and, if you're willing to face it without fear, it offers an endless
variety of things that you CAN'T anticipate, and CAN'T prepare for.
That's half the fun of being alive! Danger - at least the kind of
danger that a gun might protect you from - is not the world's dominant
feature. Open your eyes a little wider, broaden your horizons just a
bit, do some real, serious, open-minded versions of those 360
lookarounds, and you might find people and places that don't want to
harm you, and that you don't need to protect yourself from, and that
will welcome you into a whole new set of experiences that will actually
allow you to check your paranoia at the door.

Then why do we educate ourselves in math, science & literature?
You dont need to be paranoid to at least read things, try some math puzzles,
dabble in test tubes.
You also are not paranoid when you look at the world with yer sunglasses off
and realize that man is a predator. You dont have to get all weird about
it. I think most people are good in nature and expect that from others. But
then why do we lock our doors at night?

Of course, they might also REQUIRE you to check your paranoia before
they let you in. And that can be a problem, if you're not brave enough
to face the world unarmed.

Is that being brave or is that being stupid?

Bing

A possible option, here. With a Rem 870 (and most others), if you empty the
magazine and dry fire, then load the magazine, the slide is released and you
don't have to fumble around for the release button, just shuck it and chamber
a round. Same effect, nice noise and less operations to mess around with in
moments of stress.

FWIW, the safety is completely removed from my house gun (which also doubles
as a ruffed grouse gun). I use the same loading procedure while hunting.
I've shot enough rounds of skeet with round in chamber, safety off vs. no
round in chamber, work pump then shoot to know that it doesn't slow you down
much to work the pump in the process of getting on target.

Reminds me of the story by Bill Jorden (maybe Jeff Cooper, damn this oldtimers
problem, anyway) about the Texas Ranger who was walking around with a 1911 in
Condition 1, but with the thumb safety off. When someone pointed out that
this carry method was "unsafe", the Ranger replied "it's supposed to be."

Mike Eberlein

Jack Erbes wrote:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 02:06:07 GMT, "Steve" wrote:

Thank you. Just as a data point, do you keep it loaded, and
do you keep a round chambered? Do you prefer a shot load
or a slug load?

Nothing in chamber, 3 rounds in the magazine, basic dove & quail, nothing
that would go very far.

I consider that to be the perfect way to store a pump shotgun. And,
I'll add, with the bolt all the way home on an empty chamber and the
safety off.

To bring it into play, the first thing you have to do is press the
bolt release. That is under you thumb beside the trigger and it is
intuitive to you if you know the gun. It is a safety feature of sorts
if someone else picks up the gun.

Then you rack the bolt smartly and chamber a round. Your trigger
finger is, of course, straightened out and along side the trigger
guard, not on the trigger. Yet.

If you have an intruder, the sound of the bolt racking a round home
was his free warning and should provide all the inspiration he needs
to leave now.

And the dove and quail loads are perfect for inside the home.
Overspray can be repaired with spackle. If I chamber three rounds,
sometimes I'll load a 00 buck round as the first round in the magazine
(last round out). I figure the first one or two will do the work and
if I have to finish up outside the house the buck will give some extra
range.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Kirk Gordon wrote in
:

..
Someone walking down the street
with a gun in each hand, and a posse of armed friends at his
back, won't convince ANYBODY that he's interested in being
reasonable.


If
violence is really a concern, then security comes from being
BETTER armed, BETTER prepared, and more WILLING to act, than
everybody else.

If we all thought and behaved in accordance with what too
many
pro-gun preachers keep telling us, then you COULDN'T bring a gun
to a knife fight. There wouldn't BE any knife fights. There'd
only be gun fights. And they'd only involve large groups of
people, since we'd all travel only with armed friends. And
nobody'd ever get wounded. Every fight would be to the death.
And we'd all be ready to shoot first, shoot often, and to kill
rather than be killed, every time even the smallest disagreement
sparked any kind of conflict. We'd have to be, because we'd
have to assume that the other guy was that ready, and that much
on edge, and that willing to fire; and because shooting first
and asking questions later really IS the only possible
protection in that kind of environment. And the overall level
of safety for EVERYONE would be smaller. MUCH smaller.

And if you carry this idea to its logical conclusion, then
the only
people who'd really be safe would be the ones who understand
that there aren't any rules when bullets are flying, and that
order, discipline, and the desire to interact peacefully with
other human beings is a weakness to be exploited. The only way
to be safe would be to make yourself more dangerous, more
menacing, more deadly than anybody else around you. And that,
IMHO, isn't the best way to run a world. If it were, then folks
like Hitler, and Stalin, and Bin Laden, would be heroes rather
than feared and hated criminals.


KG

Robert Heinlen has already addressed this issue.

It is correct to become as dangerous as possible. Each individual
(Heinlen believes this should be only males) should strive to be as
dangerous and lethal as possible AND encourage everyone else to do
the same.

Now, you know everyone else is doing the same thing. What is your
best course of action?

Heinlen claims it is not a melee scenario. In a melee there is too
much randomness. Those people who immediately open and return fire
have a much greater chance of being killed than those people who
avoid a firefight.

The people who recklessly open fire will self-select themselves out
of the population.

Heinlen believes the Meme will spread that while each individual
has the ability to kill anyone else it is better to attempt to
negotiate than to instantly open fire.

One very important aspect is that enough people consider themselves
as part of a community. This does carry risk. The risk/benefit
analysis becomes: If I attempt to negotiate, and I am killed, what
happens next?

The prefered result is that the killer is identified as irrational
and is then killed by another member of the community. This will
encourage negotiation before shooting.

If this does not happen then we are back to melee.

So the final question is "are people capable of a form of
'altruism' by attempting to negotiate before shooting"?

jim rozen wrote in
:


Well then that raises the next question on my mind.
What is better for this situation, a full stock on
a shotgun, or a pistol-grip?

Any comments from those in the know?

Thanks - Jim

Standard stock.

conversation up to this point snipped, but a shotgun was recommended as a
defense weapon

I, too have an 870 Wingmaster my wife bought me at KMart in 1973 for $140.
If push ever comes to shove, I would prefer it to any of the nine pistols I
am licensed to carry. With a shotgun, you just about don't even have to
aim. You just point.

If you have spent more than 40 hours in your lifetime birdhunting, a shotgun
will take care of most predators without even thinking. Point and shoot.
Of course, target identification being a vital component. With shotguns and
laser sighted weapons, the line of sight is not obscured by sights and the
rear end of a gun or the gun itself. With a laser, you look at the dot, and
you can have the gun on top of your head. With a shotgun, anyone can point.
A thing you learn in kids play with broomstick guns. You are fully looking
at the target and the situation, and the gun really almost stays out of your
field of vision. At times of REAL dangerous situations, eye contact will
decide the outcome, and is maybe as important as the gun in the situation.

Ever notice in police situations, when they get really serious, out come the
shotguns? That is for a reason. They are going to hit what they shoot at,
and they are going to stop it. No 50 shot gunfights with no injuries and
the badguy escaping. Usually that is why the bad guys lay down when they
see a shotgun. Or a K-9. It is a lose/lose deal.

If I had to take one gun into a fight, I would take a shotgun. They were
the preferred weapon in WW1 trenches and were highly regarded in Vietnam.
In other confrontations, the BAR, Thompson, and M16s may have been
preferred.

But to anyone who has been in a real close firefight, a shotgun is the
weapon of choice. And it isn't going to kill someone within a mile of you.

Steve

On 22 Sep 2003 17:20:44 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , JTMcC says...

That is entirely correct, but if you are expecting our criminal to flee in
fear of the shotgun that now has a round chambered, you are likely to be
suprised by the speed, intensity and violence of the attack by our not
intimidated intruder, especially if the encounter is, as most homeowner
defense type situations are, at very close range.

Well then that raises the next question on my mind.
What is better for this situation, a full stock on
a shotgun, or a pistol-grip?

Any comments from those in the know?

Thanks - Jim

Full stock with moderate length barrel. Its very hard to aim (and you
DO have to aim a shotgun) with a pistol grip stock, and weapons
retention if someone gets a hold of the end of it..really sucks. Not
to mention recoil and second shot recovery is very bad with a pistol
gripped shotgun.

Gunner


"Anyone who cannot cope with firearms is not fully human. At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house."
With appologies to RAH..

Well, after the "schlack-schlack!" there's always Plan B......

That is entirely correct, but if you are expecting our criminal to flee in
fear of the shotgun that now has a round chambered,


Plan B doesn't involve continuing to attempt to convince anyone to flee.

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On 22 Sep 2003 17:20:44 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:
Full stock with moderate length barrel. Its very hard to aim (and you
DO have to aim a shotgun) with a pistol grip stock, and weapons
retention if someone gets a hold of the end of it..really sucks. Not
to mention recoil and second shot recovery is very bad with a pistol
gripped shotgun.

Gunner

When I sold guns (with federal license, of course), I had a tape from
Benelli. The Benelli would fire five times before the first casing hit the
ground. It was awesome, and I would have bet a week's paycheck that no
shotgun could do it. But it can.

Steve

Well, after the "schlack-schlack!" there's always Plan B......

NEVER chamber a shell you are not ready to fire. Plan B is to fire the
shell.

SteveB

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Kirk..Ive spent a live time avoiding Bad Things. Car accidents, food
poisoning, redheaded women G, heavy objects moving in my direction.

Well, we share three out of four. My wife is a redhead, I've been in a
couple of nasty car accidents, and I almost died from salmonella. Nothing
really heavy has fallen on me, but I barely got my legs out from under a
Clausing lathe that fell over when we were moving it. g

dang. I'm four for four. ladyfriend is a Redhead, and does having a bus
fall off the jack while you are under it count?

Oh, yeah, that's bonus points.

Ed Huntress

Kirk Gordon wrote in message ...

Gunner wrote:
Rules of Gunfighting

I'm surely wasting my time here; but...



Yes. If these people had a functioning brain they
wouldn't feel the need to rely on firepower. Hence
talk is not something a peson whose talents are
limited to violence will understand. Amazing what
active imaginations they have, but limited to such
narrow channels. I wonder if there's a medical term
for this ?

On 22 Sep 2003 21:54:33 -0700, (Excitable Boy)
wrote:

Kirk Gordon wrote in message ...

Gunner wrote:
Rules of Gunfighting

I'm surely wasting my time here; but...



Yes. If these people had a functioning brain they
wouldn't feel the need to rely on firepower. Hence
talk is not something a peson whose talents are
limited to violence will understand. Amazing what
active imaginations they have, but limited to such
narrow channels. I wonder if there's a medical term
for this ?

Sure, they are Chinese and they drive tanks over kids. But hey...its
not like they were machine gunning them...ah..er..whooopps...

Comrade..you are the biggest apologist I know for Chinese Communism,
and for the 35+millon dead they generated. Your history is
revisionist, your views are spurious and you are a reactionary.

Bummer.

Gunner


"Anyone who cannot cope with firearms is not fully human. At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house."
With appologies to RAH..

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:45:39 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote:


The part about being prepared to protect oneself is sorta
interesting, though. There's a not-quite-explicit undertone in all of
the responses to my post which seems to assume that I've never been in
danger, never dealt with violence, and that I live some sort of charmed
life which affords me the luxury of pretending that self-defense isn't
necessary or important.

Kirk,
Actually I know from your posts that you are a very capable
individual, and I look up to you. That doesn't mean you can't be wrong
from time to time.
As I've said several times I don't own any firearms anymore, but then
I don't go to work every day at one shop I saw in LA. It had an opaque
heavy gauge steel fence at least ten feet high all the way around the
property, topped by razor wire, and of course there were two large
mean dogs which patrolled every second of every night hoping someone
was stupid enough to get past the fence. I was told that heroin is a
pretty popular thing around there, and armed robberies are common in
the neighborhood. If I worked there I would carry, and wouldn't care
much about someone else's hoplophobia. (fear of firearms)
I'm less afraid of a good man well armed than of a few million people
who are afraid of guns.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:20:38 -0700, "Steve"
wrote:


Well, after the "schlack-schlack!" there's always Plan B......

NEVER chamber a shell you are not ready to fire. Plan B is to fire the
shell.

SteveB

Absolutely correctomundo.

Never present a weapon, unless you are fully prepared to use it, and
to live with the consequences afterwards. You may threaten with
it..but the will must be there To use it if things escalate. If you
ever doubt that you can use deadly force... Do NOT get a firearm.

If you hesitate, the threat may take it away from you, use it on you
and the rest of your family.

One of the major reasons CCW is so good, is the surprise factor. If
they see you as an unarmed victim, they are less likely to try
something devious to work around your being armed. Like a good
birthday party..when the bad guy reaches a certain point..he is
generally fully exposed and vulnerable to you.

This also may save the taxpayer incarceration expenses and really
lowers the number of repeat offenses your particular perpetrator
commits. Dirt naps tend to slow down bad guys pretty well.

Gunner


"Anyone who cannot cope with firearms is not fully human. At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house."
With appologies to RAH..

On 22 Sep 2003 21:54:33 -0700, (Excitable Boy)
wrote:

Kirk Gordon wrote in message ...

Gunner wrote:
Rules of Gunfighting

I'm surely wasting my time here; but...



Yes. If these people had a functioning brain they
wouldn't feel the need to rely on firepower. Hence
talk is not something a peson whose talents are
limited to violence will understand. Amazing what
active imaginations they have, but limited to such
narrow channels. I wonder if there's a medical term
for this ?

Talking really worked very well for the students in your beloved
Tienemon Square. Along with the other 35 million dead, not to mention
those in Nanking in 1940.

Sigh..you really never cracked a history book have you?

Gunner


"Anyone who cannot cope with firearms is not fully human. At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house."
With appologies to RAH..

Gunner wrote in message . ..


Talking really worked very well for the students in your beloved
Tienemon Square. Along with the other 35 million dead, not to mention
those in Nanking in 1940.

Sigh..you really never cracked a history book have you?



not _your_ kind of history book, no ... do they have
special classes in Crackpot History back there ta Bob
Jones University ?

I guess that's a dumb question ... does a bear ****
in the woods ?

Let's get a few things straight. Your "35 million killed
by the commies" chant is another gunnerite crock. You know
less than nothing about Chinese history and your understanding
of China and/or Communism goes so far into the negative that
I'm surprised Taft hasn't been designated as a National Black
Hole.

Nan jing is the name of the city. I was just there Sunday
and half of Monday while I waited for the bus. Different
from Huzhou ... has some hills. More dusty than here. The
people from Nanjing prefer to drink bai jiu rather than
beer. As far as I can see, gun ownership didn't help the
Iraqis too much when the US invaded, either. Gun ownership
in the hands of the 'militia' is pretty useless when faced
with the Imperial Japanese Army.

Tiananmen was an interesting case. The "students" actually
won. They had widespread support because people were ****ed
off about inflation. People who live on their savings in
old age tend to dislike inflation. Unfortunately, they forgot
the cardinal rule of survival in China - get along. Perhaps
due to inexperience, perhaps they were manipulated by other
forces, but at the point when they should have backed down
and accepted 90% of what they wanted, they continued burning
buses, overturning police cars, and generally creating an
unacceptably explosive situation. There is no way on earth
that _anyone_ with one tenth of a functioning brain can
think that a billion and a half people in a state of chaos
is a good thing. The students at Tiananmen forced their own
downfall.

Now, for the counter-question : would Washington sit in
conference with a million students massed in front of the
White House, defying legal orders to return home, defying
the National Guard, overturning buses, burning police cars,
and generally running amok ? For two weeks ? The chicken-
**** *******s refuse to even sign a non-aggression pact
with North Korea lest that "sends a signal" that any kind
ofcompromise is possible. If you ever see any Americans
grow balls enough to defy the government, then maybe you can
have something to say about Tiananmen. Until then, I have
Passaic, New Jersey to point your way or the way the
Establishment dealt with every progressive movement we had
in the Thirties. You and your "history", pffffffffffffffft.
What you know about history would fit in a Kaiser Thinbit
shim seat.

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:50:28 +0200, Jan Nielsen
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:48:03 GMT, Gunner wrote:

Talking really worked very well for the students in your beloved
Tienemon Square.

Or the students at Kent State University...

Yup...all 4 of them.

Gunner


"Anyone who cannot cope with firearms is not fully human. At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house."
With appologies to RAH..

On 23 Sep 2003 03:19:53 -0700, (Excitable Boy)
wrote:


Now, for the counter-question : would Washington sit in
conference with a million students massed in front of the
White House, defying legal orders to return home, defying
the National Guard, overturning buses, burning police cars,
and generally running amok ? For two weeks ?

Probably not...but its not luck that we will never have to find out .

Now about the other 35 million dead........


Gunner


"Anyone who cannot cope with firearms is not fully human. At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house."
With appologies to RAH..

"Excitable Boy" wrote in message
m...
Kirk Gordon wrote in message
...

Gunner wrote:
Rules of Gunfighting

I'm surely wasting my time here; but...



Yes. If these people had a functioning brain they
wouldn't feel the need to rely on firepower. Hence
talk is not something a peson whose talents are
limited to violence will understand. Amazing what
active imaginations they have, but limited to such
narrow channels. I wonder if there's a medical term
for this ?

I believe it is called post traumatic stress disorder. It is the remnant of
them being violated: robbed, mugged, burglarized, beaten, shot, stabbed,
raped, forced to perform sexual acts at gun/knifepoint, or various other
violations. I can see that your young virgin college whitebread liberal
little ass hasn't had enough life experiences to understand this. I can
tell it from your writing style.

And just because we haven't seen something, we can't immediately dismiss it.
I have not lived the inner city life of many people and have not witnessed
the hardscrabble existence they lead. I have not seen the Statue of
Liberty. I have not set foot on Pluto. But I do believe such things exist
because I am a reasonable enough man to believe other's who know about such
things.

BTW. Violence is not a talent. It is a survival strategy. Had your
ancestors not had enough of it to survive in tough situations, your wimpy
butt would still be cosmic dust. Why do you disrespect your lineage so
much? Is it because you ARE the universe and everything revolves around
your know-it-all persona? Violence is also defined by society. I have
killed fewer people with my guns than Ted Kennedy has killed with his car.
Go figger.

Write back after you meet Ben Dover and his buddies.

Steve

(Excitable Boy)
wrote:


Now, for the counter-question : would Washington sit in
conference with a million students massed in front of the
White House, defying legal orders to return home, defying
the National Guard, overturning buses, burning police cars,
and generally running amok ? For two weeks ?


Shades of the DNC in Chicago with Mayor Adolph Daley.

Steve

"Glen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:45:39 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote:

I'm less afraid of a good man well armed than of a few million people
who are afraid of guns.

Oh, my. A reasonable man in a sea of hysterical humanity. I salute you,
sir.

SteveB

H.C. Minh wrote:

So the final question is "are people capable of a form of
'altruism' by attempting to negotiate before shooting"?

Capable? Most people probably are. Likely to attempt negotiation?
Based on what passes for pro-gun rhetoric in this country, I'd guess not.

The only motivation for anyone to negotiate is the belief that
there's something to gain. If I believe, however, that I'm better
armed, more skilled, quicker on the trigger, or otherwise very likely to
prevail in a gunfight, then negotiation isn't necessary. I can get
everything I want by shooting first, instead of settling for only part
of what I want as a result of negotiation. Whether I actually WILL
prevail after the shooting starts is another question; but by the time
we answer that one, the opportunity to negotiate is long gone.

Heinlein was good at asking provocative questions, and at providing
answers which, I believe, were intended to be extreme rather than
accurate. Rather than a true sage or philosopher, IMHO, he was more
like an extremely interesting mega-troll. And one of the most common
problems with taking his ideas too seriously is the fact that so many of
them assumed a world in which ALL his proposals were accepted and
adopted completely and simultaneously. That's one of the luxuries of
writing fiction, and of specualating about a future that hasn't yet
become real.

In real life, every man will not make himself dangerous on the same
day, in the same way, or to the same extent. And the people who go
first, if real history is any indication, might very well prevent all
the rest from following their lead.

If I have a gun, then you need one. If I'm pointing my gun at your
head, and telling you that I don't want you armed, then you're not going
to find Heinlein's proposal real useful.

Of course, that's exactly the argument used so often by pro-gun
activists. And it's the reason we have a "right to bear arms" in the US
constitution. In effect, the second ammendment says that if the
government tries to subvert us at gun point, then we ought to be able to
take Heinlein's suggestion, and point our own guns right back at the
government, and thereby compell our leaders to negotiate. That, in
principle, prevents tyranny.

What Heinlein omits from his over-simplified world is the very real
fact that all arms are not created equal. If a cop points his pistol at
me for unjust or oppressive reasons, I can point mine back at him. Fair
enough. Will that compell him to become reasonable and to negotiate
with me? Not likely. It'll instead compell him to call for backup.
I'll do the same, of course. Then the cop will call for rifles and
shotguns, since we're at a standoff with handguns. My friends and I
will respond in kind. Then the cop calls for an armored vehicle. I can
probaly match that, since I'm a machinist who knows how to tinker with
cars, so we're still even. Then the cop gets a helicopter, or an army
tank from the local national guard station, or, eventually, a whole air
force. And I'm gonna have a real hard time keeping up for very long.
So, in the end, the only thing that's negotiable is how ****ed off the
cops and the government are, and how badly they're going to treat me
after I've made them haul out their tanks and air forces. I don't win.

Of course, if you carry "the right to bear arms" to its logical
extreme, then I SHOULD have access to all the weapons that the
government has. In fact, I should have access to any and all forms of
self defense that ANYBODY else has, anywhere in the world, since I never
know where a threat to my safety and freedom might come from.

Does that work? I doubt it. As in any other human endeavor, there
will be a wide range of skills, financial resources, and ruthlessness,
among the members of any significant population. In a big enough
population, it's reasonable to assume that the capacity to be dangerous
will be distributed in a nice, neat, bell-curve kind of way. Roughly
two thirds of us will be close to the average, and therefore able to
effect a standoff with one another in most cases, and to make
negotiation preferable to gunshots. And about one sixth of us will be
at the bottom end of the curve, effectively powerless.

Please note that "powerless" involves only the capacity for
self-defense. Someone who's not good with guns, but good at something
else, like maybe surgery, might be an extremely valuable member of our
society; but might still be unable to negotiate for his freedom, his
life, or even for the things he needs to practice surgery, and to save
other lives. Not a good situation, when you consider how many kinds of
vital, productive work can only take place in an environment of relative
security and freedom, and which don't necessarily involve marital skills
of any kind.

And, of course, there will be roughly one sixth of the population
who are "ahead of the curve", and who don't need to negotiate at all
with the other 84% of us who aren't as dangerous as they are. How do we
protect ourselves from them?

Heinlein's proposal, followed carefully and logically, and combined
with natural, inescapable, random differences among human beings,
creates an immediate and unimpeachable aristocracy of firepower, which
the population as a whole will be unable to overthrow. Worse, Heinlein
implicitly ENDORSES the creation of this special class, and discourages
the arguments, political processes, and social attitudes which, in real
history, have been the only ways that human beings have ever come even
close to actually protecting themselves from large-scale gunpoint
oppression.

And if this aristocracy exists, of course, there is certainly no
guarantee that it won't be at least partially populated by true
sociopaths, and become the WORST thing that ever happenned to humanity.

You may recall that Heinlien had an answer to all these problems.
In "Stranger In A Strange Book", he invented a special class of "perfect
witnesses" - people with perfect memories, perfect integrity, and
perfect capacities for logic and judgement, who were called upon to be
the mediators or arbitrators in all forms of human negotiations and
disputes. These people were universally accepted, and were beyond
reproach or question. They could, therefore, become the trump card
played by justice and sanity, whenever those things were threatened.

Obviously, this answer was pure fiction. We'd all like to think
that there's a god, or a perfect witness, or SOMEBODY somewhere who
could, with the wave of a hand, sweep away all the ignorance, prejudice,
and dishonesty in the world, and who could make sure that justice was a
real, constant, and reliable part of our lives. Sadly, that ain't gonna
happen in the real world anytime soon.

The other thing Heinlein ignored in his "perfect world" scenarios is
the fact that there has always been, and will always be, a significant
(and growing) segment of any population which does NOT see negotiation
as a good idea under any circumstances. There are always some people
who - at least in their own views - have no hope of gaining anything
from negotiations, and nothing to lose by choosing other options. I'm
thinking about some of the folks who now populate the worst
neighborhoods of America's inner cities - people for whom life is cheap,
and killing is considered a part of life, and dying isn't all that big a
deal. Or maybe the Palistinians would fit in this category. An amazing
number of them seem willing to commit suicide, just for the privilege of
killing others while they're at it. These people are the ones who DON'T
think that a general melee, or any other form of random violence is such
a bad idea. The seem to imagine that ANY change from the status quo
would be an improvement, and that killing and dying are acceptible
prices to pay for the hope of change.

Would people like this become less of a threat to general security
and freedom if they were as well armed as any other people, or any other
organization of people? Or, to put it another way, would the world be
safer from terrorism if Al Queda were allowed and encouraged to have its
own air force, rather than needing to steal commercial planes in their
pursuit of what they consider justice? Did the knowledge that the US is
well armed, and very capable of shooting back, deter the attacks of two
years ago? Does the knowledge that police forces are well armed, well
orgainzed, well trained, and very capable of returning fire, prevent
drug-gangs from shooting at each other in the streets of our cities, or
bank robbers from robbing banks every single day? Of course not.

To a "reasonable" person, the threat of capable response from an
enemy might be cause to consider negotiation preferable. But that kind
of "reason" is not now, never has been, and never will be, nearly
universal. Even when the weapons in question were nuclear warheads, and
even when the "negotiators" were supposedly the best and brightest
leaders that major nations could produce, and even when the destruction
of an entire species was conceivable, the US and the USSR came
astonishingly close to trading shots, on at least one occasion. And,
obviously, Saddam Hussein and company weren't constrained by the
knowledge (even though it had been dramatically demonstrated just a few
years earlier) that the US could win in a gunfight. And there are
plenty of other examples, of course, of people who are just as happy to
inflict pain and injury on others, as to win some benefit for themselves.

If Heinlein truly believed that people like these would eventually
be selected out of existence, then he was a fool. The numbers of
dissatisfied, disenfranchised, disgruntled, disfuntional, and disturbed
people are limitless. Every time we kill one, two others get mad at us.
The people in the middle east, and in the Balkan countries, and other
places, have been fighting the same wars, for the same reasons, over the
same little bits of sand and dirt, for THOUSANDS of years! MILLIONS
have been killed, and there are millions more still fighting. The
de-selection that Heinlein imagines is simply NOT going to happen.

Heinlein was an optimist - even to the point of being irresponsibly
optimistic about human nature, and about the homogeneity of motivations
that drive six billion individual people.

In my view, the more we encourage everybody to be dangerous, the
more total danger there will be. That doesn't mean I'm not concerned
about the dangers that already exist. I just don't think that adding
more fuel to the fire will cause it to burn itself out without also
destroying the whole house. I'm still hoping that parts of the house
might be saved by the skillful use of some water or a fire extinguisher.

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.

On 23 Sep 2003 03:19:53 -0700, (Excitable Boy)
wrote:


not _your_ kind of history book, no ... do they have
special classes in Crackpot History back there ta Bob
Jones University ?

I guess that's a dumb question ... does a bear ****
in the woods ?

A Hamei does that in the newsgroup! Read the "Black Book" about the
great effects of Communism, try reading it with an open mind. The
authors were French academicians I believe, not from Bob Jones U
either.

Glen wrote:

I'm less afraid of a good man well armed than of a few million people
who are afraid of guns.

Me too. But where do you live that you have that kind of choice?
As far as I can tell, the real world contains millions of good folks,
millions of cowards, fools, and genuinely evil people, and also millions
of guns, which are distributed pretty much randomly among all the
different kinds of people (except Canadians, of course).

And, in my humble opinion, adding more guns won't change the rules,
or give any of us less to worry about.

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Kirk..Ive spent a live time avoiding Bad Things. Car accidents,
food poisoning, redheaded women G, heavy objects moving in my
direction.

Well, we share three out of four. My wife is a redhead, I've been
in a couple of nasty car accidents, and I almost died from
salmonella. Nothing really heavy has fallen on me, but I barely got
my legs out from under a Clausing lathe that fell over when we were
moving it. g

dang. I'm four for four. ladyfriend is a Redhead, and does having a
bus fall off the jack while you are under it count?

If the bus fell because it was rammed by a car driven by a readheaded
woman, and if this all happened right after you'd had lunch in a really
crummy cafeteria, then you win. It's not even a contest.

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.