Rules of Gunfighting
You may someday need to apply one or more of these
The absolute First Rule of a Gunfight, in Mark Moritz'
brilliantly enunciated aphorism, is "Have a gun!" The rest
will supplement that first rule....

Have a gun.

Preferably, have at least two guns.

Bring all of your friends who have guns.

Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is
cheap. Life is expensive.

"Why did you shoot only once? There's no additional
paperwork for shooting someone twice!" – Firearms
Instructor P.O.J.D., MOS debriefing after a shooting.

Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow
miss.

If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving
fast enough or using cover correctly.

Proximity negates skill. Distance is your friend. (Lateral
and diagonal movement are preferred.)

If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long
gun... and a friend with a long gun.

In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber,
stance or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

If you are not shooting, you should be communicating,
reloading and running.

Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be
more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy
of the gun. Use a gun that works every time. "All skill is
in vain when an Angel ****es in the flintlock of your
musket."

Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they
should have to beat you to death with it because it is
empty.

Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one
you lose.

"If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan
your mission properly."

Have a plan.

Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.

Use cover or concealment as much as possible.

Flank your adversary when possible. Protect your own flank.

Don't drop your guard.

Always perform a tactical reload and then threat scan 360
degrees.

Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone
else, keep your hands where I can see them.)

Decide to be aggressive enough, quickly enough.

The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.


Be polite. Be professional. But... have a plan to kill
everyone you meet.

Be courteous to everyone. Friendly to no one.

Your number one option for Personal Security is a lifelong
commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun whose caliber does
not start with a "4."

Nothing handheld is a reliable stopper.

Carry the same gun in the same place all the time.
Collected by Dean Speir , Formerly Famous Gunwriter.





The Gun Zone Directory
Rules for a Gunfight



Not surprisingly, the
late Michael Harries
had his own opinions:
Michael's Assorted Rules for a Gunfight.

Bring a gun.

Bring the biggest gun you can find.

Bring a backup gun.

Bring all your friends who have guns.

BEST rule for a gunfight.
Shoot first.

Courtesy of Dano
Navy Rules
of Gunfighting
1. Go to Sea
2. Send the Marines
3. Drink Coffee






"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..

http://www.robichaux.net/archives/000208.php

There are a few more ad-hoc additions on the above thread.

Mike Eberlein

Gunner wrote:


Rules of Gunfighting
You may someday need to apply one or more of these
The absolute First Rule of a Gunfight, in Mark Moritz'
brilliantly enunciated aphorism, is "Have a gun!" The rest
will supplement that first rule....

Have a gun.

Preferably, have at least two guns.

Bring all of your friends who have guns.

Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is
cheap. Life is expensive.

"Why did you shoot only once? There's no additional
paperwork for shooting someone twice!" – Firearms
Instructor P.O.J.D., MOS debriefing after a shooting.

Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow
miss.

If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving
fast enough or using cover correctly.

Proximity negates skill. Distance is your friend. (Lateral
and diagonal movement are preferred.)

If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long
gun... and a friend with a long gun.

In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber,
stance or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

If you are not shooting, you should be communicating,
reloading and running.

Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be
more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy
of the gun. Use a gun that works every time. "All skill is
in vain when an Angel ****es in the flintlock of your
musket."

Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they
should have to beat you to death with it because it is
empty.

Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one
you lose.

"If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan
your mission properly."

Have a plan.

Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.

Use cover or concealment as much as possible.

Flank your adversary when possible. Protect your own flank.

Don't drop your guard.

Always perform a tactical reload and then threat scan 360
degrees.

Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone
else, keep your hands where I can see them.)

Decide to be aggressive enough, quickly enough.

The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.


Be polite. Be professional. But... have a plan to kill
everyone you meet.

Be courteous to everyone. Friendly to no one.

Your number one option for Personal Security is a lifelong
commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun whose caliber does
not start with a "4."

Nothing handheld is a reliable stopper.

Carry the same gun in the same place all the time.
Collected by Dean Speir , Formerly Famous Gunwriter.





The Gun Zone Directory
Rules for a Gunfight



Not surprisingly, the
late Michael Harries
had his own opinions:
Michael's Assorted Rules for a Gunfight.

Bring a gun.

Bring the biggest gun you can find.

Bring a backup gun.

Bring all your friends who have guns.

BEST rule for a gunfight.
Shoot first.

Courtesy of Dano
Navy Rules
of Gunfighting
1. Go to Sea
2. Send the Marines
3. Drink Coffee





"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 Sat, 20 Sep 2003 13:40:53 -0700, mikee wrote:

There are a few more ad-hoc additions on the above thread.

Mike Eberlein


Thanks!

Id not seen this one before G

Just a small riff on the same idea:

EU Rules for Fighting

1. Go to UN, placate dictators and thugs.

2. Send in Jimmy Carter, promise aid packages to dictators and thugs.

3. Sell equipment to make WMD to dictators and thugs.

4. Pay blackmail and extortion fees to dictators and thugs with WMD

5. Act surprised and shocked when WMD is exploded in your territory

6. Promise to work with Americans to find thugs and dictators who
exploded WMD on your territory.

7. Allow open immigration policy from countries that host thugs with
WMD.

8. Insist that immigrants do not assimilate into your culture.

9. Fund research committees to discover why immigrants hate you so
much.

10. Drink coffee, sit in sidewalk cafes. Decry Mcdonalds culture while
standing in long line for burger, frys and shake.

11. Take 8 weeks of vacation while EU economists sit mystified at EU
'lack of productivity'.

12. Consider getting a job, then reconsider.

13. Consider starting your own company, then reconsider.

14. Go on Strike, drink coffee, sit in sidewalk cafes, wonder where
all the US tourists went.

15. Decry Disneyifcation, while planning family vacation to EPCOT.

16. Decry American militarism in public, work with US special forces
in secret.

17. Complain about US troops on soil, cry bitterly when they leave.

18. Wonder out loud "why cant the US be more like us"

19. Wonder in private "why cant we be more like the US"

20. Wonder how you can get a green card to go to the US.

21. Wonder what happened to your currency and your countries
sovreignty.

22. Fly Grandma to US for hip surgery( not allowed for patients over
55 in most EU countries) Make friends, take phone numbers, remember
who has the biggest sofas for later plan to move to US.

23. Drink Coffee, Sit in sidewalk cafes , wonder aloud "what use is a
Winnebago, recreational vehicle, Quad-runner, wave-runner, off road
vehicle, or SUV "?

24. At end of day, soak your sorrows in the pub and wonder where it
all went wrong, while watching Americans take action on CNN.


Posted by: frank martin on January 21, 2003 03:18 PM


"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..

The one I always liked is "When in doubt, empty the clip".
"Gunner" wrote in message
...


Rules of Gunfighting
You may someday need to apply one or more of these
The absolute First Rule of a Gunfight, in Mark Moritz'
brilliantly enunciated aphorism, is "Have a gun!" The rest
will supplement that first rule....

Have a gun.

Preferably, have at least two guns.

Bring all of your friends who have guns.

Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is
cheap. Life is expensive.

"Why did you shoot only once? There's no additional
paperwork for shooting someone twice!" - Firearms
Instructor P.O.J.D., MOS debriefing after a shooting.

Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow
miss.

If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving
fast enough or using cover correctly.

Proximity negates skill. Distance is your friend. (Lateral
and diagonal movement are preferred.)

If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long
gun... and a friend with a long gun.

In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber,
stance or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

If you are not shooting, you should be communicating,
reloading and running.

Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be
more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy
of the gun. Use a gun that works every time. "All skill is
in vain when an Angel ****es in the flintlock of your
musket."

Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they
should have to beat you to death with it because it is
empty.

Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one
you lose.

"If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan
your mission properly."

Have a plan.

Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.

Use cover or concealment as much as possible.

Flank your adversary when possible. Protect your own flank.

Don't drop your guard.

Always perform a tactical reload and then threat scan 360
degrees.

Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone
else, keep your hands where I can see them.)

Decide to be aggressive enough, quickly enough.

The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.


Be polite. Be professional. But... have a plan to kill
everyone you meet.

Be courteous to everyone. Friendly to no one.

Your number one option for Personal Security is a lifelong
commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun whose caliber does
not start with a "4."

Nothing handheld is a reliable stopper.

Carry the same gun in the same place all the time.
Collected by Dean Speir , Formerly Famous Gunwriter.





The Gun Zone Directory
Rules for a Gunfight



Not surprisingly, the
late Michael Harries
had his own opinions:
Michael's Assorted Rules for a Gunfight.

Bring a gun.

Bring the biggest gun you can find.

Bring a backup gun.

Bring all your friends who have guns.

BEST rule for a gunfight.
Shoot first.

Courtesy of Dano
Navy Rules
of Gunfighting
1. Go to Sea
2. Send the Marines
3. Drink Coffee






"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..

From: mikee
Date: 9/20/03 4:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Geez, Gunner,

We must have struck a nerve with this guy!

They have no nerve, just a hive mentality.
Drones come preprogrammed and are incapable of
indepenet thought they just carry out the orders
of thier masters.

Best Regards
Tom.

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:31:42 GMT, sittingduck
wrote:

Gunner wrote:



Rules of Gunfighting

For 99% of the population and the gunners of the world:

You must have a very small penis and a complex about it.

Ask your ol lady..she doesnt seem to complain when I slip over.

You must listen to right-wing radio and believe the crap they spew

I listen, but take much of it with a grain of salt. You must listen to
Leftwing TV and believe all the crap that they spew.

You must live in a fantasy land where violence and killing other people are
somehow acceptable and glorious.

This bit...wipe it off when you pull it out your ass, as the ****
smell is still ripe. What makes you so bigoted and biased about those
whom own firearms or have used them in the service of their country,
or for protection of themselves and their families, that you could
possible believe the diarretic spew you just typed? You must be quite
the hater. Got any good anti-semitec or black jokes? Dont post them
here..we dont much care for your kind of bigoted people. Try the KKK
newsgroups for your brand of hatred. Perhaps Maxine Waters or
Farakkans people could use you. Or maybe Hillary's 2008 campaign
committee.

Those of us whom HAVE had to use violence and kill people know full
well, that while a dirty ugly business at best..unfortunatly sometimes
its necessary. You are living proof of that.

You must live in a house with wheels on it.

See the bigotry and the hate in your post. BTW..no, I dont.

You must watch "Cops" on TV

No, I seldom watch tv, and then only the news, or the History Channel.
Ill bet you watch Donahue and the Rosie Rotten Crotch reruns.

As its late Saturday, Ill not make this any longer, because I know you
are primping for your role as the Door Prize at the Blue Oyster
Bathhouse later this evening. Remember ..always use a condom, no
matter if the guy tells you he is HIV clean or not.

Bon Appattite.

Gunner

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional
maturity"
-Sigmund Freud , "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis"

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 18:33:10 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun whose caliber does
not start with a "4."

"It's better to hit with a .22 than miss with a .44" - L.J.K. Setright

-Carl

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 16:38:38 -0700, mikee wrote:

Geez, Gunner,

We must have struck a nerve with this guy! Some people have no sense of humor
at all.

Mike Eberlein (NRA life member, US Army veteran, unabashed right wing gun nut)

sittingduck wrote:


For 99% of the population and the gunners of the world:

You must have a very small penis and a complex about it.

You must listen to right-wing radio and believe the crap they spew

You must live in a fantasy land where violence and killing other people are
somehow acceptable and glorious.

You must live in a house with wheels on it.

You must watch "Cops" on TV


I suspect he is one of those extremely unstable types, whom when in
the presence of a weapon, gets all shaky and nervous and starts
thinking about all the people that hold him in contempt, all the good
looking women whom turned down his advances and laughed at him
...and wishing for lots of ammo and chained naked
women....well...strike that last part G..but you just know he walks
on the ragged edge of twisting off and going postal.

And he knows deep inside that he, if allowed a dangerous weapon, be it
a firearm or sash weight, will turn on everyone around him like a mad
rabid dog. Hence his bias and bigotry, is symptomatic of his own self
hatred. Pretty much typical of the emotion driven nut bars on the
Left.

His type is one reason the rest of us have arms for self defense.

I hope he doesn't work for the Post Office....brrrrr.

Gunner

"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on,
and walk down the street with no permit of any kind:
some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders
are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" --
Andrew Ford

Geez, Gunner,

We must have struck a nerve with this guy! Some people have no sense of humor
at all.

Mike Eberlein (NRA life member, US Army veteran, unabashed right wing gun nut)

sittingduck wrote:


For 99% of the population and the gunners of the world:

You must have a very small penis and a complex about it.

You must listen to right-wing radio and believe the crap they spew

You must live in a fantasy land where violence and killing other people are
somehow acceptable and glorious.

You must live in a house with wheels on it.

You must watch "Cops" on TV

"news4.bellatlantic.net" wrote in message
...
The one I always liked is "When in doubt, empty the clip".

Oh man! that's a cardinal sin around here!

JTMcC.


"Gunner" wrote in message
...


Rules of Gunfighting
You may someday need to apply one or more of these
The absolute First Rule of a Gunfight, in Mark Moritz'
brilliantly enunciated aphorism, is "Have a gun!" The rest
will supplement that first rule....

Have a gun.

Preferably, have at least two guns.

Bring all of your friends who have guns.

Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is
cheap. Life is expensive.

"Why did you shoot only once? There's no additional
paperwork for shooting someone twice!" - Firearms
Instructor P.O.J.D., MOS debriefing after a shooting.

Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow
miss.

If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving
fast enough or using cover correctly.

Proximity negates skill. Distance is your friend. (Lateral
and diagonal movement are preferred.)

If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long
gun... and a friend with a long gun.

In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber,
stance or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

If you are not shooting, you should be communicating,
reloading and running.

Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be
more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy
of the gun. Use a gun that works every time. "All skill is
in vain when an Angel ****es in the flintlock of your
musket."

Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they
should have to beat you to death with it because it is
empty.

Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one
you lose.

"If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan
your mission properly."

Have a plan.

Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.

Use cover or concealment as much as possible.

Flank your adversary when possible. Protect your own flank.

Don't drop your guard.

Always perform a tactical reload and then threat scan 360
degrees.

Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone
else, keep your hands where I can see them.)

Decide to be aggressive enough, quickly enough.

The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.


Be polite. Be professional. But... have a plan to kill
everyone you meet.

Be courteous to everyone. Friendly to no one.

Your number one option for Personal Security is a lifelong
commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun whose caliber does
not start with a "4."

Nothing handheld is a reliable stopper.

Carry the same gun in the same place all the time.
Collected by Dean Speir , Formerly Famous Gunwriter.





The Gun Zone Directory
Rules for a Gunfight



Not surprisingly, the
late Michael Harries
had his own opinions:
Michael's Assorted Rules for a Gunfight.

Bring a gun.

Bring the biggest gun you can find.

Bring a backup gun.

Bring all your friends who have guns.

BEST rule for a gunfight.
Shoot first.

Courtesy of Dano
Navy Rules
of Gunfighting
1. Go to Sea
2. Send the Marines
3. Drink Coffee






"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
...

snipped

Shoot first, ask questions later.

--

SVL

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

snipped

Shoot first, ask questions later.

And let GOD sort them out?

"Kathy" wrote in message
news

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

snipped

Shoot first, ask questions later.

And let GOD sort them out?



If you do happen to find yourself in a gunfight..........

--

SVL

snipped

Shoot first, ask questions later.

And let GOD sort them out?


No, let the coroner take care of the light work

Be like me...I'm the ******* that brings a gun to a knife fight.

I don't mind short range weapons...as long as mine isn't quite as short
range as yours!



Mike

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 20:48:10 GMT,
Gunner wrote
in Msg.

22. Fly Grandma to US for hip surgery( not allowed for patients over
55 in most EU countries)

What the f*ck are you blabbing about?

--Daniel

--
"With me is nothing wrong! And with you?" (from r.a.m.p)

"Kathy" wrote in message
news

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

snipped

Shoot first, ask questions later.

And let GOD sort them out?

Noooooo. Let Allah sort them out.

Be polite. Be professional. But... have a plan to kill
everyone you meet.

Bring all of your friends who have guns.

Be courteous to everyone. Friendly to no one.


What in the world is all this?

Granted that there are times when there is no substitute for a gun. However,
who would fill their mind with "plans to kill everyone they meet" or even
with discussion same?

Observations:

I am fifty years old. In that interval, 1) 30 yrs. ago I saw one person who
had just been shot (they later died and it was murder over some gal), and 2)
20 yrs. ago I drove one druggie off with a gun from my place of business
after hours in a rather rough neighborhood after dark. In the first
incident, the victim knew the perpetrator, knew they were dangerous and knew
there was a motive for what they did - in short, they had a cause to carry a
gun, and it might have saved them. In the second case, I knew I was working
in a rough neighborhood after dark and kept a gun in my desk for that
reason - i.e., I also had a specific cause to know I might need it.

However, I live in a town of 30,000 people, wherein there have been 3
recorded murders in 100 years - and we don't even know for sure that 2 of
them were murdered here - in those cases, two men killed their wives who
both expressed fear of them, and one disturbed transient fellow killed his
transient buddy.

The fact is that - spectacular news reports aside - murder is not a crime
that is evenly distributed over the countryside. If you are not found in
bars after midnight, if you are not habiltually drunk and do not associate
with persons who are habitually drunk and have an actually adjudicated
criminal and mental-treatment history, and don't frequent very rough
neighborhoods where murder is statistically the most common, your chances in
one lifetime of being shot or in the presence of someone who is shot are
essentially nil.

I collect guns, like guns, and have an interest in gunsmithing issues as one
of the more elegant machine tool endeavors. I support the 2d Amendment and
RKBA. I also think that if there is a known threat in your life, carrying a
gun may be a reasonable choice for the duration of that threat. However,
there is not a reasonable case to be made that, in most times and places,
one is sufficiently likely to need a gun that they should make the effort to
carry one on them unless they have specific cause to do so.

It's certainly not reasonable to "be courteous to everyone, friendly to no
one," or to "have a plan to kill everyone you meet." This is simply and
profoundly emotionally disturbed.

I'll leave you all with one final story:

An acquaintance owns 60 acres, through which an easement passed in favor of
the adjoining landowner. The adjoining landowner was one of those fellows
who might subscribe to the Rules for Gunfighting cited above. He was always
well-dressed and well-spoken, and he always carried a .357. I had spoken
on friendly terms often with him, but he was clearly one of those fellows
who "had a plan for killing everyone he met."

This fellow developed a running conflict with his other neighbor over
essentially nothing. One day he went to the other fellow's house and began
to make some sort of dispute while the other fellow was working in the yard
with a rake. In the ensuing altercation our fellow went for the gun in his
jacket and the other fellow whopped him with the rake and grabbed him around
the neck. The other fellow strangled him to death as he fired repeatedly
trying to hit the guy.

When I heard what had happened, I was not at all surprised. I considered
this both an entirely predictable outcome and the best outcome under the
circumstances. This fellow lived a life that flirted with someone's violent
death, he created a situation wherein it was not reasonable for him to use a
gun, and his intended victim killed him precisely because of his attempt to
use that gun. Good day to him.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 08:43:15 GMT, sittingduck
wrote:

Gunner wrote:

This bit...wipe it off when you pull it out your ass, as the ****
smell is still ripe. What makes you so bigoted and biased about those
whom own firearms or have used them in the service of their country,


haha! you are so predictable. How greedily you rise to the bait.

And you THINK you know how I think but you are SOOOOO wrong.

duck ----owns many guns and NO tv

Of course. I googled your name on groups BEFORE posting..
Why waste the opportunity for a good rant? G

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 Sun, 21 Sep 2003 15:51:34 GMT, "Steve" wrote:

Be polite. Be professional. But... have a plan to kill
everyone you meet.

Bring all of your friends who have guns.

Be courteous to everyone. Friendly to no one.


What in the world is all this?

Granted that there are times when there is no substitute for a gun. However,
who would fill their mind with "plans to kill everyone they meet" or even
with discussion same?

Dont take it quite so literally. Its meant to be humorous, while
providing some basic rules.

I congratulate you on your choice of towns. Now put yourself in the
shoes of a police officer responding to a call in Watts, or Compton,
California. You WILL meet some people that may not have your welfare
foremost on their mind. In fact..the call may have been generated
Simply to get you into their grasp. Now look at that saying again
through that police officers shoes. Or..perhaps that of a armored car
messenger, moving a dolly load of cash though a parking lot in a "bad
neighborhood".
Or perhaps from behind the counter of an all night pharmacy in a bad
area in Cleveland.
If you keep in mind that you may have to shoot someone in self
defense, you are unlikely to freeze when a situation arises.

Your gentleman whom was strangled, got what he deserved. He violated
a number of the rules, not to mention intentionally violating not only
the intent of the law, but the law itself. He went spoiling for a
fight, which is vastly different than being prepared mentally for a
problem that may come up.

Think of it as war gaming while driving on a freeway. What will you do
if that guy on the cell phone swerves into your lane? Will that guy
stop at the intersection or is he gonna blow the stop sign? Its wet
and its the first rain of the season, and the oil is floating out of
the pavement, what will you do if you blow a tire?

At no time are you HOPING for any of those things to happen, or
looking forwards to such, are you? I know Im not..in fact, I pray that
bad things dont happen. Been there, done that, got the scars and the
Tshirt..but on the other hand, Im alive. Shrug..works for me.

Observations:

I am fifty years old. In that interval, 1) 30 yrs. ago I saw one person who
had just been shot (they later died and it was murder over some gal), and 2)
20 yrs. ago I drove one druggie off with a gun from my place of business
after hours in a rather rough neighborhood after dark. In the first
incident, the victim knew the perpetrator, knew they were dangerous and knew
there was a motive for what they did - in short, they had a cause to carry a
gun, and it might have saved them. In the second case, I knew I was working
in a rough neighborhood after dark and kept a gun in my desk for that
reason - i.e., I also had a specific cause to know I might need it.

Sounds like you have had a rather uneventful life.

However, I live in a town of 30,000 people, wherein there have been 3
recorded murders in 100 years - and we don't even know for sure that 2 of
them were murdered here - in those cases, two men killed their wives who
both expressed fear of them, and one disturbed transient fellow killed his
transient buddy.

Sounds like a very nice place to live.

The fact is that - spectacular news reports aside - murder is not a crime
that is evenly distributed over the countryside. If you are not found in
bars after midnight, if you are not habiltually drunk and do not associate
with persons who are habitually drunk and have an actually adjudicated
criminal and mental-treatment history, and don't frequent very rough
neighborhoods where murder is statistically the most common, your chances in
one lifetime of being shot or in the presence of someone who is shot are
essentially nil.

You just conterdicted yourself..see the place where you said not
evenely distributed over the countryside. And you missed a few
things..such as being a cab driver, or clerk in a stop and rob, or a
newspaper delivery guy, or a pizza delivery person.... In Podunk Falls
all such are pretty safe jobs. In East LA, they are not.

I collect guns, like guns, and have an interest in gunsmithing issues as one
of the more elegant machine tool endeavors. I support the 2d Amendment and
RKBA. I also think that if there is a known threat in your life, carrying a
gun may be a reasonable choice for the duration of that threat. However,
there is not a reasonable case to be made that, in most times and places,
one is sufficiently likely to need a gun that they should make the effort to
carry one on them unless they have specific cause to do so.

As you said..all is not evenly distributed over the country....can you
think of places that you go, that you would not go, without being
armed? I damned sure can. Now to that druggie that you chased from
your business with a gun. If you had not had one with you, how would
it have ended up? One doesnt wear seatbelts when the vehicle is
parked, nor do you wear them hoping an accident will happen. You may
drive millions of miles without incident, but the one time you have a
wreck, will you or will you not be wearing your seatbelt?

It's certainly not reasonable to "be courteous to everyone, friendly to no
one," or to "have a plan to kill everyone you meet." This is simply and
profoundly emotionally disturbed.

You read it far to seriously and literally. But then as I pointed out
in the first paragraph..there are times and places and jobs where that
mindset is proper. It may not be, in Podunk Falls of course, but other
places..

I'll leave you all with one final story:

An acquaintance owns 60 acres, through which an easement passed in favor of
the adjoining landowner. The adjoining landowner was one of those fellows
who might subscribe to the Rules for Gunfighting cited above. He was always
well-dressed and well-spoken, and he always carried a .357. I had spoken
on friendly terms often with him, but he was clearly one of those fellows
who "had a plan for killing everyone he met."

This fellow developed a running conflict with his other neighbor over
essentially nothing. One day he went to the other fellow's house and began
to make some sort of dispute while the other fellow was working in the yard
with a rake. In the ensuing altercation our fellow went for the gun in his
jacket and the other fellow whopped him with the rake and grabbed him around
the neck. The other fellow strangled him to death as he fired repeatedly
trying to hit the guy.

When I heard what had happened, I was not at all surprised. I considered
this both an entirely predictable outcome and the best outcome under the
circumstances. This fellow lived a life that flirted with someone's violent
death, he created a situation wherein it was not reasonable for him to use a
gun, and his intended victim killed him precisely because of his attempt to
use that gun. Good day to him.

The guy was a moron, a trouble maker and bad cess to him. I feel sorry
for the fellow whom was forced to kill him, as he will have to live
wth that death in the back of his mind for the rest of his life, no
matter how justified it was. The gent in your story, was exactly the
reason some of us do carry an arm. The gentleman with the rake was
very lucky. If he were to have been armed, and the trouble maker not
aware of the fact, with some mental conditioning, (read the saying
again from inside the gent with the rakes head, at that time and that
place) the situation may have been resolved without gunfire. Most such
do indeed end without gunplay, hell virtually ALL such end witout
gunfire

As I said..read the post with a sense of humor. Take what you need
from it, and if it doesnt fit your mindset..drive on. Shrug.

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:
Rules of Gunfighting

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

I've always liked Izaak Azimov's idea: "Violence is the last refuge
of incompetence."

In other words, if you're in a gunfight, then you've already made at
least one mistake, and all your subsequent choices and decisions are
suspect. In fact, if you can't make good choices BEFORE the shooting
starts, then the odds that you'll do any better when surrounded by
noise, bullets, and mortal danger, are vanishingly small.

This also applies to knife fights, fist fights, road rage, and even
arguments that involve loud voices or foul language. If you think of
life as fundamentally confrontational, then YOUR life WILL be; and you
will NOT enjoy what happens when you meet someone else just like you.

The trouble is, most of the people who write things like these
"Rules of Gunfighting" don't believe a word of what they've written.
And, somewhere deep inside, most of them are secretly praying that
nobody else believes them either. There AREN'T any rules for gunfights.
Gunfights only happen when rules are ignored, and when order, logic, and
all other forms of reason have already been tossed aside. To propose
some logical, "intelligent" way to plan or conduct a gunfight is
preposterous.

If you're holding a gun, and thinking in terms of some prescribed
course of action, or attempting to rely on some accepted codes of
conduct, or acting on the advice of someone who wasn't in a gunfight at
the moment he wrote his list of rules, then you're probably going to
die. In fact, the surest way to LOSE a gunfight is to imagine that
rules, order, or planning are even possible. Those who kill and destroy
most successfully are the people most willing to understand this fact,
and to take advantage of others who won't. This is why a sneak attack
is more likely to succeed than an overt assault. It's why ambush is
such a staple of warefare at all levels. It's why shooting someone in
the back is always safer (for the shooter) than a face-to-face
confrontation. It's why guerilla warriors are so often successful even
against larger and better equipped "regular" armies.

And, it's why terrorism has become such a popular form of combat
among so many of the world's most confrontational people. If you think
it's a good idea to bring a knife to a fistfight, or a gun to a knife
fight, or a bunch of armed friends to a gunfight, then you have no right
to be surprised or angry if your enemies decide to bring a fleet of
hijacked aircraft to attack you and all your armed friends. The
terrorists are only doing what you did; but they're more honest about
it. They understand that there aren't any rules, once violence has
begun, and that people who imagine themselves able to be armed AND
reasonable make very easy targets.

And if you CLAIM to be armed and reasonable at the same time, then
it's very likely that you're either badly mistaken, or lying through
your teeth.

I'm often amazed that people who own guns, who understand guns, and
who've invested time and effort in knowing how to use and maintain their
guns, so often attempt to reassure their friends and neighbors about
matters concerning gun safety, and about how their skill and knowledge
offer protection against accidents, and against improper or unauthorized
use of their guns, etc. These same people, who take such great care to
ensure the safety and responsilbe use of any individual firearm, seem to
have no corresponding concern for the much bigger and more important
matter of safety and responsibility regarding ALL firearms, and of the
principles which guide (or ought to) the choices about ownership and use
of guns throughout an entire culture.

Someone who'd never look down the barrel of a loaded gun too often
seems more than willing to look at loaded, dangerous ideas and
proposals, and not to worry about what those ideas mean, or the harm
they could do if not challenged and refuted. Someone who'd never
carelessly fire even a single bullet into a crowd of innocent people
will fire massive salvos of half-truths, self-serving lies, and
undiluted paranoia into any public forum, without apparent regard for
ANYONE's safety or well being. Someone who would never allow his gun to
harm even one small child, or innocent bystander, or falsely accused
criminal suspect, seems to care not a bit about the fact that his ideas,
proposals, and politics, can become a real and constant danger to EVERY
individual, and to our society as a whole.

And the reason for all this is a simple matter of dishonesty and
self-deceit.

Charleton Heston does NOT really want me to pry his gun from his
cold, dead fingers. He's lying when he says that. What he really wants
is to convince me that he's mean enough, dangerous enough, and crazy
enough, so that I won't ever disagree with ANYTHING he says, for fear
that it'll be MY cold, dead body that really ends up being at issue.

The guy down the street from me, who keeps his unloaded handgun
(with trigger lock) in the closet, his unloaded shotgun in a gun-vault,
and his ammunition in a a safe place in the basement, does NOT believe
that any of those things will protect him if armed thugs break into his
house in the middle of the night. He also doesn't believe that
something like that is really going to happen, or he'd also have bars on
his windows, and a big mean dog in his yard, and more. Or, he'd move to
another neighborhood, instead of letting his family live someplace where
violent crime is a real threat or worry. He also doesn't believe that
his family would be safer if he kept his guns loaded, handy, and
available for immediate use as protection. That's WHY he keeps them
locked away. The truth is that he just happens to like things that are
smooth, and heavy, and precisely crafted, and that feel good and scary
and powerful in his hands. And he's willing to lie to himself, to make
excuses to everybody else, and to keep his toys locked away where he
can't even get to them easily, just for the thrill of taking them out
once or twice a year to shoot at a bird or a paper target. Hunting and
target shooting are fine; but lying isn't. This guy isn't honest enough
just to say that he likes noisy and dangerous toys. So he talks about
security, and about the right to bear arms, and all the rest. And not a
single word of it has anything to do with his real thoughts or motives.

And the guy who wrote those "Rules of Gunfighting" doesn't believe
even one of them. If he did, he'd never have said a word about his
beliefs to anyone else. He SURELY wouldn't have published them, and
allowed them to become magazine articles or internet newsgroup postings.
Why not? Because the rules don't work - CAN'T work - if anybody else
knows about them or believes in them. If the rules actually made sense,
and if this author were successful in his attempt to insinuate them into
popular knowledge and practice, then he'd soon (and often) find himself
among people who carry two guns, who are surrounded by armed friends,
who think distance is good idea, and who therefore never get too close
to anybody. He'd live in constant fear of people who are always
planning how and where to fire, who alwyas have their guards up, who
expect HIM always to keep his hands where they can be seen, who carry
only large caliber or long-barrelled weapons, which are more likely to
injure or kill ANYONE who happens to be in the line of fire - even from
three blocks away, who plan to shoot twice, at least, and who therefore
intend only to kill, and never just to wound or disable any (real or
imagined) adversary, and who are generally as scary, menacing, and
suspicious as possible, because of all the 360 lookout stuff, and the
fast, lateral or diagonal movement toward cover.

Is that REALLY what this rules-writer wants to see when he steps out
of his home every morning? I doubt it. In fact, I'm sure it's not
true. What this person REALLY wants is to brag about how clever he can
be in creating absurd, imaginary situations where he's better prepared
than everybody else to deal with fictitious, video-game scenarios. If
he were serious about all this stuff as a way to keep himself safe, then
he'd want to be sure that he was the ONLY one who knew the rules; and
that he had the advantage of being BETTER prepared than ANYBODY else he
might happen to meet. If he meets someone who believes him, or who acts
just like him, then he's screwed.

And that part about "a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence,
and de-escalation" is hogwash. 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.

And, since we're talking about honesty, let's go all the way and
make it direct and real. Nobody - not Gunner, not Charleton Heston, not
the guy down the street, and not the author of these so-called rules -
could possibly be more safe, more secure, or more likely to avoid harm,
if everyone believed the ideas that too often pass for justification of
firearm ownership. 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.

I'm tempted to say something like "I'll carry a gun when you force
it into my cold, dead fingers"... but somebody'd probably believe me.
And people who believe you are ALWAYS dangerous, when you're preaching
something that's fundamentally wrong or dishonest.

KG

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

it is funny, a lot of the guys i worked with had the same attitude as this
guy.....while they were in the academy. one year on the streets, completely
different attitude (much akin to mine and apparently most of the posters here)

In article aOjbb.399689$cF.122829@rwcrnsc53, Steve says...

I collect guns, like guns, and have an interest in gunsmithing issues as one
of the more elegant machine tool endeavors. I support the 2d Amendment and
RKBA.

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?

Jim

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

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

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 15:51:34 GMT, "Steve" wrote:
It's certainly not reasonable to "be courteous to everyone, friendly to no
one," or to "have a plan to kill everyone you meet." This is simply and
profoundly emotionally disturbed.

You've just described nearly every cop I've ever met. I'll let *you* call
the Man "emotionally disturbed".

Gary

In article t6nbb.542022$uu5.90316@sccrnsc04, Steve says...

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

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?

Jim

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

A couple interesting stories: This one was 'reported' on TV, but I don't
think it was the news. A man and his wife had the mindset of always being
on the alert for the need to defend themselves against armed attack. One
day outta the blue came a couple guys on the freeway shootin at them for no
reason. They took the nearest off ramp, pulled into a gas station and took
up defensive positions behind the car just like they always 'trained'. They
ended up killing one and I think wounding the other.

This was also 'reported' on TV, in an interview months after the event. A
pilot was flying an airliner to Hawaii when suddenly the top of the
aircraft flew off unexpectedly (is there any other way?) One stewardess was
sucked out of the plane presumably to her death; I believe all others
survived. In the interview the pilot stated he had rehearsed just such an
incident repeatedly in his mind over a period of time to 'practice'
handling the plane under such conditions.

insert Twilight Zone music here



An acquaintance owns 60 acres, through which an easement passed in favor
of
the adjoining landowner. The adjoining landowner was one of those fellows
who might subscribe to the Rules for Gunfighting cited above. He was
always
well-dressed and well-spoken, and he always carried a .357. I had
spoken
on friendly terms often with him, but he was clearly one of those fellows
who "had a plan for killing everyone he met."

This fellow developed a running conflict with his other neighbor over
essentially nothing. One day he went to the other fellow's house and
began
to make some sort of dispute while the other fellow was working in the
yard
with a rake. In the ensuing altercation our fellow went for the gun in
his
jacket and the other fellow whopped him with the rake and grabbed him
around
the neck. The other fellow strangled him to death as he fired repeatedly
trying to hit the guy.

When I heard what had happened, I was not at all surprised. I considered
this both an entirely predictable outcome and the best outcome under the
circumstances. This fellow lived a life that flirted with someone's
violent
death, he created a situation wherein it was not reasonable for him to
use a
gun, and his intended victim killed him precisely because of his attempt
to
use that gun. Good day to him.

"Kirk Gordon" wrote in message
...
Gunner wrote:
Rules of Gunfighting

This also applies to knife fights, fist fights, road rage, and even
arguments that involve loud voices or foul language. If you think of
life as fundamentally confrontational, then YOUR life WILL be; and you
will NOT enjoy what happens when you meet someone else just like you.

I agree with yer premise but not the whole argument.

I taught Uechiryu karate for 4 years. In ALL of those years and years since
we trained for the unexpected. In most cases the same scenario, multiple
times. Things that most people would not even consider but do indeed happen
to somebody everyday.
Your post reminded me of that training. Just by talking about it is
training.
It's not confrontationtional to think about confrontations. It may be a bit
neurotic but that doesnt necessarily make it a bad thing.

Our military and police train and think of the unexpected everday. That
doesnt make them neurotic. it makes them better at their jobs.

People make the mistake of thinking that guns inherantly are bad things in
themselves. They never mention the people that pull the trigger as being the
bad, neurotic things that they are.

If I dropped a post about how to defend yerself with yer own body would that
be considered as bad as Gunner's post? What if mine was as humorous as his?

Granted, at 50 yards the human body is not so efficient as a gun but at
close range it can be more lethal.

You never have to worry about reloading, and in most cases you dont need a
permit.
In all my life I have seen more people beat to **** than shot by a gun.

Bing

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
--
I'm sick of spam.

Bing wrote:

I agree with yer premise but not the whole argument.

I taught Uechiryu karate for 4 years. In ALL of those years and years since
we trained for the unexpected. In most cases the same scenario, multiple
times. Things that most people would not even consider but do indeed happen
to somebody everyday.
Your post reminded me of that training. Just by talking about it is
training.
It's not confrontationtional to think about confrontations. It may be a bit
neurotic but that doesnt necessarily make it a bad thing.

Our military and police train and think of the unexpected everday. That
doesnt make them neurotic. it makes them better at their jobs.

People make the mistake of thinking that guns inherantly are bad things in
themselves. They never mention the people that pull the trigger as being the
bad, neurotic things that they are.

If I dropped a post about how to defend yerself with yer own body would that
be considered as bad as Gunner's post? What if mine was as humorous as his?

Granted, at 50 yards the human body is not so efficient as a gun but at
close range it can be more lethal.

You never have to worry about reloading, and in most cases you dont need a
permit.
In all my life I have seen more people beat to **** than shot by a gun.

Bing





The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.

"Kirk Gordon" wrote in message
...
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.

I agree in point but that seems like a blanket statement to me. Not everyone
has the same skills nor even the guts to even go into training. Then again
I've seen people so ill equipped physically that they actually surprize me
that they are able to defend themselves in the first place much less walk
and chew gum. People will surprize you.

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.

How would you presume that? Having an advantage is not growing a bigger arm
or having a bigger fist. For one thing I taught all my students to run
first, yell for cops and if neither of those work then assess the situation
as it is. Then try to run again. If that doesnt work then defend yerself.

I think the point we are missing is defending oneself or just looking for
trouble. In todays times defending yourself against a threat that may never
come is not really a bad idea. Taking it to the extreme and looking for some
trubble just to defend yerself is stupid. I dont think anybody here is that
dumb.
But, not at least training yerself in basic defense measures could be
considered just as dumb.

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 think yer talking about crazy people, not the norm with legal gun
owners.And criminals do not abide by the same code as normal people. They
dont go thru a background check. They dont have to get permits or register
their weapons. They dont even clean or take care of their weapons. Most
leave them out in the open for their kids to get aholt of.
I'll give you the fact that it is much easier to shoot someone at 50 yards
than to face him one on one.
And I'll also give you the fact that some people just aint satisfied with a
handgun and a long rifle or shotgun. But, thats not a good argument against
gun ownership. It may be a good argument about how hard it is to face
someone personally, face to face in a fight or confrontation. But that may
be another OT topic.

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.

I also respect what you are saying but I would be lax if I did not point out
what I see are basic fallacies on gun ownership that alot of people keep
bringing up.
Guns in themselves do not kill people. Owning a gun or guns does not make
you a nut. It's legal.
Its regulated for those that abide by the law. We could go into the stats
about gun ownership but thats not what I perceive this to be about.

To me this is about Gunner dropping yet another post and me finding it
amusing. Others seem to think Gunner is a fruitcake. A Wako wannabe. And a
crossposter. I dont see him that way. I see him as a former vet, that has
some strong points to bring up about service to his country and his own
views on life. I dont agree with everything he says, and maybe I aint been
here long enough for him to **** me off yet, but I find his posts
informative for the most part, even if he is crossposting.
Lately, his knife post I found highly informative even if he did drop it
from somewhere else.
Most everybody here has some great info to impart to the world. I think that
to be a fine thing. If others can help somebody else than thats the way it
should be.

Is this all about Gunner or all about guns?
Guns are legal, Gunner may not be

Bing

Kirk Gordon wrote:

Gunner wrote:
Rules of Gunfighting

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

I've always liked Izaak Azimov's idea: "Violence is the last refuge
of incompetence."


These rules all point to someone who is without the benefits of civilization, a creature on its own surrounded by potential predators and competitors. There are people today that live that way: cops, soldiers in the field, various sorts of criminals, and probably some others I've missed. For _them_ rules like this probably apply. For the rest of us, we don't need these rules. If TEOTWAWKI comes, that's different. Until then, I plan to stay civilized.

I'd re-label them "Rules for a Firefight", that puts it more in context and doesn't conjure the image of the lone gunslinger of the much-romanticized American Old West.


(a nit: "Isaac Asimov")

--
Carl West http://carl.west.home.comcast.net

change the 'DOT' to '.' to email me

As always, put on rubber gloves, wear eye protection, stand on an electrically insulating mat, dress in old clothes, avoid electrical shock by working with one hand in your pocket, and do it outdoors in a well ventilated area. Lastly, to avoid personal injury, have it done professionally.
- http://www.homemetalshopclub.org

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.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 23:42:35 GMT, "Bing"
pixelated:

If I dropped a post about how to defend yerself with yer own body would that
be considered as bad as Gunner's post? What if mine was as humorous as his?

Go for it! (With the OT heading, of course. Then post
a real one. How about a "50 ways to Defend Yourself in
Hand-to-hand Combat"? Show us the moves Steven Seagal
makes in his movies, only real. I've seen how to bend
fingers the wrong way and adjust wrists so the person
comes along quietly for a citizen's arrest. How about
the rest? (DEfense only.)


You never have to worry about reloading, and in most cases you dont need a
permit.
In all my life I have seen more people beat to **** than shot by a gun.

Ditto here, and usually by more than one person at a time.


----------------------------------------------------------
--== EAT RIGHT...KEEP FIT...DIE ANYWAY ==--
http://www.diversify.com/stees.html - Schnazzy Tees online
----------------------------------------------------------

"mark" wrote in message
news:01c38092$1fd466a0$1a4f5d3f@bootskie...
A couple interesting stories: This one was 'reported' on TV, but I don't
think it was the news. A man and his wife had the mindset of always being
on the alert for the need to defend themselves against armed attack. One
day outta the blue came a couple guys on the freeway shootin at them for
no
reason. They took the nearest off ramp, pulled into a gas station and took
up defensive positions behind the car just like they always 'trained'.
They
ended up killing one and I think wounding the other.

This was also 'reported' on TV, in an interview months after the event. A
pilot was flying an airliner to Hawaii when suddenly the top of the
aircraft flew off unexpectedly (is there any other way?) One stewardess
was
sucked out of the plane presumably to her death; I believe all others
survived. In the interview the pilot stated he had rehearsed just such an
incident repeatedly in his mind over a period of time to 'practice'
handling the plane under such conditions.


That plane is here in Tucson. I've seen it on the base. Pretty wild.

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...

Indeed you are. Most of your post below is bull****. You engage in
intellectual masturbation in this post.

I dont carry a gun to intitate violence. Thats the last thing on my
mind. I carry a firearm to respond to it, and to stop violence against
my person.

I've always liked Izaak Azimov's idea: "Violence is the last refuge
of incompetence."

Asimov was never assaulted by an individual hell bent on committing
unprovoked violence against him.

Im sorry to have to say this..and this is the first time, in a long
history of excellent posts..this once you had to pull straight from
your ass.

Kirk..Ive spent a live time avoiding Bad Things. Car accidents, food
poisoning, redheaded women G, heavy objects moving in my direction.
But Kirk...not all Bad Things or Bad People have spent a life time
avoiding me. And that old friend..is why I carry a weapon.


I'm tempted to say something like "I'll carry a gun when you force
it into my cold, dead fingers"... but somebody'd probably believe me.
And people who believe you are ALWAYS dangerous, when you're preaching
something that's fundamentally wrong or dishonest.

KG

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


"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 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.

If each of us had the same skill levels..no one would initiate
violence against another, as it would be mutual suicide, barring good
luck. Unfortunately...this is not something we need concern ourselves
with. Someone is always better, faster or has more luck. Hopefuly it
will be the victim, not the perpetrator.

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.

Skill and treachery works a fair amount of time.

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.

I can kill you just as well with a #2 pencil, or a rolled up
newspaper, or the steak knife on the kitchen counter, or even the
broom beside it. Those are not skills that take any appreciable time
to learn.

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.

Wrong. You assume both parties survive the initial encounter, to be
able to escalate it.

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

The only problem with owning firearms, its safe usage, and the common
sense to when to use it or when not to.

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:
Rules of Gunfighting

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

I've always liked Izaak Azimov's idea: "Violence is the last refuge
of incompetence."

In other words, if you're in a gunfight, then you've already made at
least one mistake, and all your subsequent choices and decisions are
suspect. In fact, if you can't make good choices BEFORE the shooting
starts, then the odds that you'll do any better when surrounded by
noise, bullets, and mortal danger, are vanishingly small.

Ain't that the whole purpose of this exercise? Ya may not agree with, or
even understand, some of the points brought up in the original post, but I
guarantee ya that everyone who read it spent some time thinking and
visualizing their own responses to action BEFORE (borrowing your emphasis)
the shooting starts.


This also applies to knife fights, fist fights, road rage, and even
arguments that involve loud voices or foul language. If you think of
life as fundamentally confrontational, then YOUR life WILL be; and you
will NOT enjoy what happens when you meet someone else just like you.


And, my friend, what do you do when YOU meet someone who is NOT "just like
you.." "Sweet reasonableness" (while certainly admirable) is a poor
defense when confronted by those
who are neither sweet nor reasonable....



The trouble is, most of the people who write things like these
"Rules of Gunfighting" don't believe a word of what they've written.
And, somewhere deep inside, most of them are secretly praying that
nobody else believes them either. There AREN'T any rules for gunfights.
Gunfights only happen when rules are ignored, and when order, logic, and
all other forms of reason have already been tossed aside. To propose
some logical, "intelligent" way to plan or conduct a gunfight is
preposterous.

To misquote your opening misquote (look it up..), incompetence is the
inevitable state-of-being of the unprepared. The underlying goal of any
interaction must be Personal Survival - and the preferred method of
achieving
that goal must be non-violent. 99 percent of the time, negotiation and
compromise are sufficient, but to fail to plan for that remaining 1% leaves
one depending on luck for survival.

No, thank you -- I'd rather not.

rest of rant - which loses all semblance of "Sweet Reasonableness" --
snipped

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 10:51:44 GMT, Loren Coe
wrote:

In article , Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:31:42 GMT, sittingduck
wrote:

hey Gunner! this guy is probably a troll. just my
guess based on his username. --Loren

He is just playing around, trying to get me to rant. And I obliged him
G

Gunner


Gunner wrote:

Rules of Gunfighting
....
You must live in a fantasy land where violence and killing other people are
somehow acceptable and glorious.

This bit...wipe it off when you pull it out your ass, as the ****
smell is still ripe. What makes you so bigoted and biased about those
whom own firearms or have used them in the service of their country,
or for protection of themselves and their families, that you could
possible believe the diarretic spew you just typed? You must be quite
the hater. Got any good anti-semitec or black jokes? Dont post them
here..we dont much care for your kind of bigoted people. Try the KKK
newsgroups for your brand of hatred. Perhaps Maxine Waters or
Farakkans people could use you. Or maybe Hillary's 2008 campaign
committee.

Those of us whom HAVE had to use violence and kill people know full
well, that while a dirty ugly business at best..unfortunatly sometimes
its necessary. You are living proof of that.

You must live in a house with wheels on it.

See the bigotry and the hate in your post. BTW..no, I dont.

You must watch "Cops" on TV

No, I seldom watch tv, and then only the news, or the History Channel.
Ill bet you watch Donahue and the Rosie Rotten Crotch reruns.

As its late Saturday, Ill not make this any longer, because I know you
are primping for your role as the Door Prize at the Blue Oyster
Bathhouse later this evening. Remember ..always use a condom, no
matter if the guy tells you he is HIV clean or not.

Bon Appattite.

Gunner

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional
maturity"
-Sigmund Freud , "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis"


"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 21 Sep 2003 11:20:04 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Kirk Gordon says...


... seems to care not a bit about the fact that his ideas,
proposals, and politics, can become a real and constant danger to EVERY
individual, and to our society as a whole.

And here we come into the realm of the 'other' amendment.

In the US it is generally considered that ideas, thoughts,
proposals, and politics (yes, specifically politics) are
NOT the same thing as actions.

That the law regulates actions, not words, and that these,
and ideas, can be freely traded and propogated in as free
a fashion as possible. This is one reason why I personally
disagree with any attack on the first amendment rights,
such as the ones going on by the present adminstration.

Because ironically in the end those would diminsh the rights
of folks like gunner to stand up on his soapbox and say,
well - to say whatever he wishes.

You sir have it wrong. The real danger to society is not
at the muzzle of a gun. It's at the tip of a censor's pen.

Jim

Bravo!!!!!!!!!

Gunner

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


"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 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! =-----